Cattle Movements

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I wish to inform the House that following a Government investigation into whether any illegal trade in older cattle has occurred, new movement restrictions will be placed on cattle born or reared in the UK before 1 August 1996. This is an extra precaution against meat from these older cattle entering the food chain.

DEFRA has written to the 18,000 keepers with animals of this age to inform them that in future individual licences must be obtained before the cattle can be moved.

Controls to prevent these animals from entering the food chain are already strong. It is illegal to slaughter pre-1996 animals for food, and specified risk material (SRM) such as brain and spinal cord is removed from all cattle after slaughter. In addition, any cattle aged over 48 months are tested for BSE after slaughter and only those that test negative are allowed into the food chain.

The industry has worked hard over the years to ensure British beef regained the good reputation it deserves, both at home and abroad. This extra safeguard will help maintain this reputation.

Single Payment Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

In my statement of 16 December, Official Report, column 120-21 WS, I promised to keep the House informed of the Rural Payments Agency’s (RPA) progress towards its 2010 single payment scheme (SPS) payment targets set by the previous Government.

The first target, to make payments to 85% of eligible claimants by the end of December 2010, was met with 85.5% of the eligible population paid at that date. The second target is to pay 95% of the total value of eligible payments by the end of March 2011. As I made clear in my earlier statements, this target is particularly challenging given the legacy of system and data problems that need to be corrected before accurate payments can be made.

The previous years’ achievement of targets has been at the expense of accuracy resulting in EU fines (disallowance) and a massive backlog of cases where it is believed overpayments or underpayments have been made.

The RPA oversight board which I chair decided that this state of affairs could not continue. It therefore decided to ensure the RPA makes full use of all options open to us to reduce the backlog of error cases by not pursuing those where the farmer could not reasonably have been expected to identify an error. Nevertheless there remains a substantial backlog of cases which need to be reviewed for potential errors. The board also set a priority to ensure that this year’s payments are accurate so that a line can be drawn under past failures and farmers will know their precise entitlements going forward.

Given the complexity of the existing systems and the inadequacy of the IT systems, speeding up payments is not simply a matter of increasing resources. In the last six months some 140 “fixes” have been made to the IT system which now allows us to be more confident in the accuracy, but does not significantly speed up the process.

The consequence of that, I regret to inform the House, is that the RPA will not achieve the target of paying 95% of claims by value by 31 March 2011. The estimated figure will be nearer to 90%.

We are therefore looking at the possibility of making manually validated payments to those who would otherwise be unlikely to be paid on the system before 30 June. However we need first to ensure that such payments would meet the required standard of accuracy in order to avoid further EU fines (disallowance).

I am very conscious that for many, if not all, farmers the further potential delays could involve considerable hardship or costs. We already make manual payments to hardship cases referred to us by farming charities and representative bodies. However if the RPA is finally to put the legacy of chaos, errors and disallowances behind it we need to ensure that payments made this year are based on accurate data so that we can move forward.

I met with the RPA chief executive and farming industry representatives to discuss this earlier this week. The representatives were told of the situation and have asked us to give urgent consideration to making partial payments to those farmers who are not likely to be paid soon. I have undertaken to examine this option and will continue to keep the House informed.

Forestry Commission

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ruddock]

The report, which was of course independent, was never responded to by the Labour Government, for the obvious reason that there was an election. The report went to the Forestry Commission and there was no opportunity for us to respond, but I recommend it to the hon. Gentleman. It took a considerable amount of time—more than a year—and came up with a huge range of suggestions, and the underlying research, which was reported on, was very important. The issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions are in the report, and I will come on to say what I think was very important about the review.

Has the Minister read that report? I wonder whether he has read this:

“Public consultation and social research showed passionate engagement with the public forest estate…and most people saw it as relevant to their lives”,

or this, among the major recommendations:

“The public forest estate should remain large scale, widely distributed throughout England, have a flexible and varied cross-section of all types of woodland, be able to provide a significant volume of products, services, skills and experience, and remain under public control and accountability.”

I have to assume that the Minister did not read the report; otherwise, how could he and his colleagues have embarked on such a reckless policy of selling off the lot?

That brings me to future sales. I say immediately that some sales can be justified when holdings are small or distant from the main estate, and when they are degraded or appropriate for restoration to open land. Over the 13 years of Labour Government our policies resulted in the sale of 9,000 hectares and a consequent purchase of 5,000 hectares—a net change of 4,000 hectares over 13 years. The comprehensive spending review announced the sale of 10 times that amount—40,000 hectares over a mere four years—quite separate from the new legislation that had now been abandoned. This Tory-led Government have sold 1,748 hectares to date, but we have been told that no further sales will take place—awaiting new advice. Can the Minister tell us how the Government—not necessarily his Department—expect to find the £745 million that their forestry sales were expected to realise, or what percentage of the public forest estate he still expects to sell off over the next four years, albeit with his new potential safeguards?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Joan Ruddock]

If the Minister wishes to answer now rather than in his summation, of course I will give way.

[Mr Paice]

I can assure the right hon. Lady that I have a number of points to make when I wind up the debate, but I am slightly puzzled about where she got the figure of £745 million—the supposed gain from the sales—from, given that during the debate on this issue in the Chamber, the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), said that there was nothing in it financially for the Government.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am simply citing the Government’s own ambitions, and there are substantial sums to be realised from sales. I cannot, off the top of my head, remember what the Government have raised from the 1,748 hectares sold off already, but it is certainly many millions. I would be delighted if the Minister answered my question in his response, and told us what was expected to be raised from the sales of the forestry lands—the 15%. Will he also indicate how the Government will make up that money if they do not go ahead with the sale of the 15%? They cannot have it both ways; either they plan to sell or they do not. If they plan to sell, I know—I have been a Minister myself—that the Minister will have a real estimate of the financial result of those sales.

I have another question for the Minister. In principle, does he rule in or rule out the sale of woodland in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, community forests and sites of special scientific interest? Will he confirm that DEFRA still requires the Forestry Commission to cut its budget by 25% this year, with a potential loss of 400 jobs? Surely job losses of such magnitude undermine any recommendations that his new panel might make for the future of the Forestry Commission.

In the drafting of the terms and conditions of the independent panel, is any account being taken of the findings of Labour’s review of the public forest estate? The Minister frowns, but it was an independent review carried out by experts over 12 months and was available to his Government the moment they took office, and it appears that he did not even bother to read it before coming up with these madcap proposals. Referring to the review would be significant.

Critically, will the panel be allowed to consider continuing public ownership? The Minister frowns again, but the consultation that has just been cancelled prohibited continuing public ownership. The new panel’s terms of reference will be significant. The public believe that they have won a great battle now that the consultation and plans have been cancelled pending the findings of the independent review, but the panel’s terms of reference are critical to determining the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

Or the lack of debates on forestry in the House over recent years. That is interesting because I think that it points not to a lack of interest in forestry, but to a belief, up until now, that the forests were in safe hands and it was not a matter about which Members needed to concern themselves. That was why it was so distressing and surprising when we heard the Government’s proposals to sell 40,000 hectares immediately. The hon. Member for Daventry cannot get away from it and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) cannot suggest that we misinterpreted the Government’s intentions. As shown by the quotes earlier, the Government were clear about their intentions for the public forest estate. I quote the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

“We wish to proceed with very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it.”

That is clear. People were not making it up. People did not misunderstand it. Those words meant what they—

[Mr Paice]

Rubbish.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

They could mean nothing other than that. There could be a wholesale sell-off. The outcry was totally predictable to everybody other than the Minister and his colleagues. They tried to dismiss that as scaremongering, and in the run-up to the 2 February debate, they said that they were doing it for the money. Perhaps the Minister will explain some of the figures behind the proposals and say what he now believes the net proceeds would have been. They tried to justify the sale in that way, and when that fell apart, they tried to justify it in terms of the big society. But that fell apart and, as we heard again from Government Members, they invented the spurious explanation that it was about trying to resolve a conflict of interest within the organisation of the Forestry Commission. It was somehow inappropriate for the Forestry Commission to be both the operator and the regulator, and it was incapable of doing something that it has done successfully for many decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I have attended many debates in Westminster Hall, which is normally a place for relatively non-controversial issues to be raised and discussed in a calm manner by hon. Members from all parties. I am afraid I cannot say that of today. The opening speech by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) repeated many of the myths and nonsenses that we have heard during previous discussions and questions about forestry. It was not the serious contribution to the future of the Forestry Commission that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) referred to and urged upon us.

I will address some of the key issues and respond where I can to the questions raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly pointed out that part of the public concern arose from the Public Bodies Bill. One can look back and say that the cart was put before the horse, but because we believed that changes to the Forestry Commission were necessary and we were conscious of the constraints of the legislation, we decided to put the provision into what appeared to be a suitable vehicle to permit us to make those changes. I am the first to recognise that, together with the remarks I made to which the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby) referred—I am not withdrawing those remarks, but they were back in October—that allowed people to become concerned. As it happened, that concern was unnecessary, but it allowed a number of myths to gain credence.

In the communication to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I used the word “disposal” carefully. I did not use the word “sale” because, as will be observed, the consultation document often implied disposal but not sale. Part of the absurd nonsense from the right hon. Lady included the figure of £745 million, which I suspect she took from the Forestry Commission’s annual report. That is actually the book value of all the public forestry estate, prior to any discounts for the preservation of access and other public interests. It includes the book value of the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, and we made it clear that for both of those the disposal was to be free—gratis—had it gone through. The right hon. Lady’s figures were absurd; the concept of disposal included a free handover to a charitable trust.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am more than happy to be corrected. Perhaps the Minister will let us know the estimate for the amount of money that would be raised by the disposals of which he speaks.

[Mr Paice]

As the right hon. Lady knows, the consultation document contained a lot of variability, particularly about what might be called the middle strata of woodlands and forests—not heritage but not the main commercial areas—where there was a range of options. The income from that is not easy to estimate, but we published an impact assessment as required, and the figures are in the public domain. I repeat: the primary objective of the proposition was not simply to raise cash. I will return in a moment to the issue of ongoing sales.

The right hon. Lady referred to the 0.5 million people who expressed concern about this matter. I cannot help but observe that she took a lot less notice of the 0.5 million people who opposed a ban on fox hunting and whom she treated with disdain.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Selective.

[Mr Paice]

Quite. As we have said, and as the Secretary of State said in the House, we recognised that public concern was raised dramatically, and that it was a pointless exercise to continue with the consultation in that environment. Therefore, we have withdrawn it and I do not propose to waste more time discussing what was or was not in the consultation document. That would not be constructive.

The issue was raised of the ongoing sales, or the 15% of the Forestry Commission estate that is in the spending review for the next four years. It is estimated that we would have raised £100 million from the sale of up to 15% of the forestry estate in England. The hon. Member for Leicester South asked what is happening to that, and as the Secretary of State made clear, we have suspended that process. No parcels of land or forests will be offered for sale until the panel—to which I will refer later—has reported and made recommendations regarding the protection of public interests. At the moment, there is no direct financial consequence. The £100 million, although placed in our spending review, was not allocated to any heads of expenditure. Therefore, other than a short-term cash-flow issue, there are no direct consequences of deferring those sales. I hope that explanation has clarified the issue.

A point was made about sales by previous Governments. Again, that makes me doubt the right hon. Lady’s—the hon. Lady’s—

[Joan Ruddock]

Right honourable.

[Mr Paice]

My apologies. It makes me doubt the right hon. Lady’s commitment to the whole picture. On her website, she has been on about how much land the previous Conservative Government and the Forestry Commission sold. Of course, she omits to point out that most of that was in Scotland, because under that previous Government the Forestry Commission was one body, so in comparison with what happened under the Labour Government, who were selling only in England after devolution, the figures look dramatically different. She also omitted to mention, although one of my hon. Friends did mention it, that under the previous Government tree planting fell to an all-time low. The rate halved under the Government of whom she was so proud to be a member.

Much has been said about the fact that the public forest estate comprises just 18% of all woods and forests in England. We should not in any way ignore that statistic. It is clear that many people were confused about how much of the forestry in this country was owned or rented by the Forestry Commission. It is just 18%. Although the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford and other hon. Members have been, by implication, quite damning of the 69% that is held in private hands—the rest is in other forms of public or community ownership—we do not see with that 69% all the disasters that we were told would befall public land if it went into the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly pointed out, people cannot fell trees in this country without a felling licence, and almost certainly they will have to replant. Indeed, since I have been the Minister responsible, I have had to intervene on a few occasions to enforce the replanting requirements to ensure that that happens. Therefore, suggestions of massive deforestation are completely absurd and take us away from the serious debate that others want to address.

Let me deal with some of the specific questions that I was asked. I will not disclose anything about the content of the panel, because the Secretary of State will announce in due course who will serve on the panel and what its terms of reference will be. I can emphasise, though, that the status quo—the hon. Member for Leicester South asked about this—is of course an option. If the panel recommends that, clearly it is entitled to do so. To rule it out would be nonsensical. If the panel recommends change, the issue of public consultation comes back into play, so there will be plenty of time. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said that if the panel concludes in favour of anything other than the status quo, we will not have listened to the public. I say to him that we will consult the public about any changes if the panel recommends them. I do not want to prejudge what the outcome of the panel will be.

The hon. Member for Leicester South asked how we would guarantee independence. The chairman will be appointed and will be completely independent; indeed, all the members will be. We are not filling the panel with civil servants or anything like that. It will be completely independent. It will be for the members to decide how they operate, but I cannot see why they should not have public meetings if that seems appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the 25% cut, and other hon. Members have raised that. All Opposition Members should be well aware that they managed to leave this country in desperate straits and we have had to take very tough decisions on public expenditure. All DEFRA’s arm’s length bodies have had to take a 25% cut, just as core DEFRA has had to. That is tough, and I feel for all the people who may find themselves losing jobs or not being able to get a job because the job has disappeared as a result. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the deficit must come first—we must deal with it. I will not apologise—indeed, it should be for those on the Opposition Benches to apologise—for the fact that we have had to make those reductions. The details of how they will be made in this area are a matter for the Forestry Commission. It has made its proposals, which are out for consultation. It would be wrong of me to discuss them in public while that consultation is going on.

A number of other points were raised. I shall try to encapsulate some of them but, most importantly, I want to make the point that, contrary to the impression that the Opposition have tried to give, the Government feel very strongly about forestry. Perhaps I should have said, like other hon. Members, that I have the grand total of 1 hectare of woodland on my own little property. Like others, I planted it myself 20 years ago under a woodland grant scheme, although that has long since expired, and I am proud to spend a lot of time in it managing it. I passionately believe in the importance of forestry. What I do not believe is that the status quo is automatically always the best way forward. It is right that we should reconsider how the Forestry Commission operates, and the panel will advise us on whether there should be changes.

It is worth pointing out that the Forestry Commission’s commercial arm makes a margin of just £1 million on its commercial activities. That is substantially offset by the understandable costs of recreation, amenity, biodiversity and the other services that the commission provides, as a number of hon. Members rightly identified. That means that there is a massive overall cost to the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, in the past the commission has made that up by selling off assets on an annual basis, and it has been selling those assets without the protection for public access, rights of way and all the other things that Opposition Members now preach to us about. Those things were not protected, so Opposition Members are not in a good position to criticise us.

We hope that the panel will consider all aspects of the public forest estate. As I said, the Secretary of State will publish details of the proposed membership and the terms of reference of the panel shortly. We look forward to the conclusions that it comes to. I can assure the House that the present Government’s genuine commitment to forestry in this country—public, private and community—is real and as strong as it has ever been.

The truth of what I have just said is underlined by the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, the National Forest was brought in by a Conservative Government, who did a tremendous amount of work in developing forestry in the former coal mining areas of the midlands. That is a great place for everyone to visit. The real point to make, though, is that virtually none of it is on state-owned land. Planting has been incentivised on private and community-owned land, not public land bought by the Forestry Commission. Therefore, we can have a vibrant, strong forest in this country, with access and with all the necessary protection for biodiversity. Whether the state needs to be involved not only in owning it but in managing and running it is now a matter for the panel, the details of which we will announce shortly.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

I understand the Minister’s reluctance to give the names of those who might serve on the panel, but surely he will accept that it is important that those who have spoken out so strongly on behalf of woodlands and forests have their voice heard on that panel. Will he at this stage agree to ensure that on that panel are members of the public and local campaign groups who have been speaking so vehemently on behalf of our forests?

[Mr Paice]

I am sorry, but I will not be drawn on the membership of the panel because once I give way on one aspect of who might be on the panel, I will be drawn into discussing everything. The Secretary of State will make the announcement shortly. I hope that we can then go forward with the seriousness of approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned so wisely in his contribution.

Rural Development Programme for England

James Paice Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am today announcing a series of changes I will be making to the operation and delivery of the socio-economic elements of the rural development programme for England 2007-13 (RDPE), which are currently delivered by the regional development agencies.

Future responsibility for delivery of support for farming and forestry competitiveness, diversification of the rural economy and rural quality of life under axes 1 and 3 of the RDPE, and for management of the community-led Leader approach, will transfer from the eight existing RDAs to DEFRA. This will ensure continuity and consistency of delivery for customers, and compliance with the relevant European regulations.

As responsibility transfers to DEFRA, I shall be looking to move as quickly as possible towards a more consistent national approach to delivery of the programme, with a clear focus on the Government’s priorities for farming and forestry competitiveness and the needs of rural areas: managed nationally and delivered in a way which provides locally accessible support. So I have decided that we should aim to locate the RDPE teams in their existing towns or cities initially where that is cost-effective. In order to ensure as smooth a transition as possible, I will be introducing changes to the administration of the programme on a staggered basis from 1 July. These will deliver a more consistent national approach and efficiency savings for the taxpayer, including moving away from existing regions as the key governance tier.

We will engage further with stakeholders and customers about changes to the programme, building on the existing programme governance at the regional and national levels.

I have now informed RDAs of their indicative budget allocations for 2011-12. I am pleased that, following the spending review, we are able to continue to deliver funding under axes 1 and 3 and Leader over the remainder of the programme period. But budgets are constrained and I have asked RDAs to ensure the funding available is focused on delivering against our key priorities for competitiveness and rural areas, while also beginning the process of putting in place the new nationally consistent approach to delivery in 2011-12. RDAs will inform applicants and local action groups of the position within their region. Customers should continue to remain in touch with their existing contacts within the RDAs for further information about the position on individual projects or applications.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

4. What progress she has made on improving the performance of the Rural Payments Agency.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Progress continues to be made in addressing the dire legacy described vividly in the independent review of the RPA published last year. Despite the issues arising from the updating of farmers’ maps and reduced staff numbers, the RPA met its target to pay 85% of 2010 claimants by the end of December. But there is still much to do and it will inevitably take some time to address some very long-standing problems fully.

[Tessa Munt]

I ask the Minister to recognise the work of the Farm Crisis Network, particularly the work of Suzie Wilkinson, the FCN’s co-ordinator in Somerset, and the pastoral and practical support it gives to farmers working under stress. In Somerset, there were 12 new cases in January, 10 of whom are owed something like £295,000. Farmers face eviction by banks, are unable to pay for feed and some may have to sell their stock because of TB problems. Will the Minister ensure that the RPA accelerates the cases of Somerset farmers, such as Bob Pether, whose payments have been incorrect every year since—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Mr Paice]

I have huge admiration for the work of the Farm Crisis Network, which I have visited and met on a number of occasions. The hon. Lady is right to say that it supports some very hard-pressed farmers, particularly small farmers, for whom the single farm payment is a major part of their income and without which they would be in desperate straits. I am determined that the RPA should find a way forward to get some cash into the hands of those people as soon as possible. If she would like to write to me about particular cases, I would be happy to pursue them.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us how many staff will be cut from the RPA as a result of the 30% departmental spending cuts? Will he also explain how that will speed up payments to farmers?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady assumes that the RPA was working efficiently, but it certainly was not, as the previous question demonstrates. Yes, the reduction in overall public expenditure means that the RPA is having to take a reduction in staff alongside all other arm’s length bodies, but at the same time it is becoming far more efficient, with better work practices and a new chief executive who started a fortnight ago. I am convinced we can do better with less.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

7. What plans she has to ensure that access to forests is maintained or improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

10. What recent progress has been made on reducing the incidence of diseases in the bee population; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am pleased to report that there has been a significant reduction in the number of colonies lost from all causes. For example, losses over the 2009-10 winter were 16%, compared with 30% in 2007-08, and cases of foulbrood disease have decreased steadily since 2008. It is clearly too early to know the results for the current winter, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the national bee unit has lost only two out of 180 units.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that response. The previous Government’s promises to fund research into bee diseases created a buzz of anticipation, so can I take it that the coalition have a proper plan “Bee”?

[Mr Paice]

The previous Government committed £4.3 million to research on bee health, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and I am happy to pay tribute to them for that. Of that sum, £2 million was for the insect pollinators initiative, and £2.3 million was for the healthy bees plan, and we hope that those resources will deliver results. I must say, however, that that was the result of a massive campaign by Back Benchers on both sides of the House, which forced the previous Government to commit those resources.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

11. When she plans to make an announcement on funding for individual flood defence schemes during the comprehensive spending review period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

13. What progress has been made in resolving the single payment scheme difficulties experienced by Mr Peter Philpot.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I apologise very much for the unacceptably long delay in resolving the issues on Mr Philpot’s single payment scheme claims. For the House’s information, I should declare that I know Mr Philpot personally. This is one example of the dire legacy at the Rural Payments Agency. I understand that Mr Philpot is due top-up payments for the 2007 and 2008 scheme years, and these will be made by the end of this month. Resolving the underlying problems will take longer, but I am committed to seeing that permanent solutions are found.

[Mr Baron]

The Minister kindly acknowledges that the RPA has failed my constituent over a long period. Will he detail in writing what has held up the claims so far, and which entitlements are causing the problem, in time for a meeting on 15 February between the National Farmers Union and Mr Philpot?

[Mr Paice]

To be honest, I am not sure that I can write to my hon. Friend detailing which particular transfers or entitlements are wrong. The problem is the computer system, which is completely inadequate for its purpose. It was commissioned, of course, by the previous Government, and it is not fit for purpose, especially in very complex cases such as Mr Philpot’s, where a large number of transfers of entitlements have had to be brought into play.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

14. What progress she has made on improving the performance of the Rural Payments Agency.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier.

[Rehman Chishti]

Has the Minister considered the merits of outsourcing the agency’s payments process to improve performance and efficiency?

[Mr Paice]

The short answer is yes—which my hon. Friend might be happy to settle for. I should emphasise, however, that that was one of the recommendations in the report that we published last year. We are pursuing it, but we have to ensure that we get the existing stuff working so that we do not interrupt payments even more while we look at the whole process of outsourcing.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

15. What steps she is taking to reduce fish discards; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. When she plans to announce proposals arising from her Department’s consultation on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

We are working closely with the Home Office, and we expect an announcement shortly regarding antisocial behaviour, in which the issue of dogs will be included.

[Gavin Shuker]

Members from across the House who have had serious dog attacks in their constituencies will welcome that answer. There are, however, serious concerns about the ability to implement any changes that come from the consultation, given the serious and deep cuts to the Department for Communities and Local Government and to neighbourhood policing. I would like the Minister to respond to that.

[Mr Paice]

I cannot pre-empt the announcements that the Home Office will make shortly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the plan is not for massive additional public expenditure in dealing with this issue. He will have to await the proposals that will be published shortly.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

We are all concerned about dangerous dogs—of course we are—and about the antisocial element among ordinary dogs. None the less, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that perfectly normal dogs that bark might suddenly find themselves captured in all-encompassing anti-dog regulations? Will he be cautious in addressing the problems raised by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker)?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right to urge caution. There are two slightly different perceptions. One is of the dogs that people use as fashion accessories, such as the pit bull-type dogs used by the louts that we sometimes see walking about the streets. However, the tragedies often involve household pets that, for some reason, have gone wrong. We have to bear that in mind and look at the whole picture.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

17. What recent estimate she has made of the level of farm incomes; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The latest forecasts of farm incomes were published on 27 January. They indicate that average incomes are likely to show a marked increase in 2010-11 on arable farms, but to fall on livestock farms. I am sorry to say that the current price for grain is likely to increase that differential.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the Minister aware that incomes are expected to drop by 60% for pig farms, 30% for sheep farms, 48% for farms with grazing livestock and 24% for dairy farms, and that the increase for arable farmers that he referred to is due only to the single farm payment? In the context of common agricultural policy reform, will he assure the House, and farmers, that the emphasis will remain on farm production and on ensuring a fair return to our producers?

[Mr Paice]

I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to attribute the rise in arable income to the single farm payment. It is because the price of wheat today is more than double what it was a year ago. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, our approach to the common agricultural policy is about trying to drive up productivity and competitiveness and to stop wasting money in areas in which it should not be spent. That is why we want to see a greater proportion of the funding spent on pillar two, in which we can actually aid competitiveness.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us what talks he has had with Treasury colleagues about encouraging the banks to lend more to farmers? Farmers in my constituency are suffering considerable difficulties and finding that banks are changing terms and conditions and refusing to accommodate their needs in any way.

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady is not alone in having constituents with those problems, and of course they are not restricted to farmers. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made a number of statements on the subject, including about ways in which he can press the banks to be more open with their lending and perhaps charge less for it.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

18. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the convention on international trade in endangered species; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

T3. Does the Minister agree with the Country Landowners Association that pillar one of the common agricultural policy should increasingly deliver public and environmental goods, or does he agree with the National Farmers Union, which thinks that that would increase costs for farmers, and therefore opposes the idea?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The Government, as has been published in our reply to the Commission’s proposal, believe that pillar two is the better vehicle for the delivery of public goods, which is why we believe that pillar one should gradually be phased out over a long period. We can then concentrate resources on transparent payments to farmers for delivering access, environmental benefits and a range of other public goods, including farming competitiveness.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

T4. My constituency is extremely fortunate to have Delamere forest, the largest woodland in Cheshire. Can the Secretary of State assure me, and my constituents, that this Government will always protect public access rights to Delamere forest?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

T6. I am sure that, like me and many other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister has received many representations on the future of public forests. I have more than 3,000 acres of Forestry Commission land in my constituency. Public rights of way will be protected by law, but will he give me a cast-iron guarantee that permissive access rights will also be protected, maintained and freely available under any future management agreements?

[Mr Paice]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question, because it allows me to emphasise that there is a difference between dedicated rights and permissive access. Dedicated rights apply to more than 90% of the forest estate that we own. They cannot be taken away or removed; they are there in perpetuity. However, a lot of people confuse those rights with permissive rights. The only places in the forest estate where there are such rights are land that we do not own, but have by leasehold—mainly on 999-year leases. We cannot dedicate such land because the original leases prevent us from doing so, but all Forestry Commission-owned land has dedicated access, which is permanent.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

We hear today that farmers and many others are not able to get hold of grants from the banks to further their causes. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State tell the banks that under no circumstances will they be able to buy forests?

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

T7. In my constituency we are delighted that our work against dangerous dogs and their owners has been recognised by DEFRA, and that the borough of Ealing has been selected to pilot the dog ASBOs—or “dogbos”. Can the Minister give us further details on how those are intended to work?

[Mr Paice]

I admire my hon. Friend’s doggedness in pursuing this subject, and she is right to do so. I congratulate Ealing on applying to take part in the pilot scheme and we welcome its interest, but no final decisions have been taken.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State earlier used warm tones in promising future positive engagement with the devolved Administrations on the future of the CAP. Will that engagement be on the basis of DEFRA continuing to ignore the deeply held views of the devolved Administrations on the future of pillar one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

T9. Recently in Wolverhampton we had a serious incident involving a dangerous dog. Does the Minister agree that police officers need adequate training to deal with dangerous dogs and the skills necessary to handle such situations?

[Mr Paice]

I have huge sympathy with those affected by what happened in Wolverhampton, which was a huge tragedy. A well-meaning family took in a stray dog, which then turned on their child; it could not have been a worse situation. Wolverhampton city council has rightly advised that if people find stray dogs, they should tell the council rather than taking them in. My hon. Friend is right to refer to police training. Some forces have put a great deal of resources into training their officers to deal properly with such incidents, and the rest should follow that example.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Yesterday in Victoria Tower gardens there was a photo opportunity for MPs, organised by Animal Defenders International, with an inflatable elephant. It was as surreal as it sounds. The event was to highlight the fact that DEFRA has yet to arrive at conclusions on the public consultation on the banning of wild animals in circuses. Can the Minister of State tell us when we may expect that announcement?

[Mr Paice]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the decision is imminent. This is very important. We are well aware of the work that he started on this subject, and will make an announcement shortly.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Will the Minister please give us more detail on exactly what will happen with IT management and mapping to speed up payments, particularly for small farmers?

[Mr Paice]

The Rural Payments Agency has been very involved over the past six or nine months with the providers of our IT system in introducing what they apparently term a number of “fixes” to the system to try to overcome many of the problems, and they are now working through, and enabling us to get through, some of the backlog. I suspect that we will shortly be making a decision on making manual payments, to ensure that more farmers, especially small farmers, receive their money.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Kielder forest, which will provide the bulk of the income under the Government’s plans to sell off our national heritage, is home to 31 sites of special scientific interest, as well as red squirrels and ospreys, yet the Government consultation classifies it simply as “commercial”. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give us that the public interest and conservation interests will be met in perpetuity, given that the forest is classified as commercial?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The consultation on the dangerous dogs legislation posed the possibility of extending the law relating to public land to private property, as supported by postal workers unions. Will the Government make that commitment when they announce the outcome to the consultation to protect workers such as doctors, midwives and postmen and women?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady is right that the consultation posed that question. We believe that existing legislation might be slightly inadequate, but does cover what we might call the curtilage of property—the footpath to the door, or whatever—as well as open public space. However, there was very little support in the result of the consultation for extending the legislation inside the door and into people’s private property—which, as I intimated earlier, is, sadly, where a lot of the attacks happen.

Public Forest Estate (England)

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s mention of the Mersey forest, where 1 million trees were planted in and around her constituency.

How did the Government get this so wrong? Over the summer, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rolled up her sleeves and took the axe to her own Department. She cut the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by 30%—the biggest cut of any spending Department. There are cuts to flood defence schemes, and nature reserves are next on the transfer list. England’s forests were slipped into the Public Bodies Bill in the bonfire of the quangos. However, she was seeking not a bonfire of the quangos, but the power to sell off all England’s forests.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

If the hon. Lady is so opposed to this Government taking the powers in the Public Bodies Bill, why do the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government want the same powers?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the future—[Interruption.] My question back to him is what is happening to the future of forestry in this country under his Government? If they take the heart out of the Forestry Commission model—take away what is happening in Scotland and Wales—they will effectively destroy the system that has protected the national forests for 100 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Absolutely; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.

Let us look at the maths. The Forestry Commission costs each of us 30p a year. Our ancient trees, worshipped by our ancestors as a source of food, fuel and shelter, will go in this sale of the century. The Secretary of State wants to finish a task that proved too much even for Mrs Thatcher.

[Mr Paice]

How many acres of ancient trees?

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister asks how many acres of ancient trees we have. The answer is that he does not know, because I met Forestry Commission officials this morning, and they told me that the mapping tool that the Government are using has excluded sites of special scientific interest. [Interruption.] The Minister should perhaps talk to his staff a little more. I have been talking to a lot of them, and I have not met a single one who supports his plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is taking all my lines. How can the Liberal Democrats fight forestry sell-offs in Scotland, yet vote for them here in the Lobby tonight? We can answer that question: they are just doing on the national stage what they have always done on the local stage.

[Mr Paice]

When the hon. Lady provides the House with quotes, it would be useful if she properly attributed them in the context of the events that they addressed. She referred to the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but is she not aware that what he said was in response to the then Scottish Government’s proposals? Is she not aware that we are proposing not 75-year leases, but 150-year leases? Most importantly, is she not aware that under the Scottish national land use scheme—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Minister, you must be brief. I think we have got the point.

[Mr Paice]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Paice]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Minister, you will resume your seat now. Thank you. I am on my feet and I have already said that interventions must be brief. That applies to everyone, including Front-Bench Members. This is a very important debate and many Members wish to contribute to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

A lot of issues have been raised in the debate, and I intend to respond to as many as possible. I undertake to write to hon. Members who have asked specific questions if I do not have time to answer them all.

We have heard speculation about all sorts of risks to aspects of forests if our proposals go ahead. I hope in the next few minutes to be able to debunk most of that nonsense. Those risks have been invented for totally spurious reasons. I stress that this is a consultation, and that it will last for the full 12 weeks, as is the convention. During it, we will listen to many of the organisations referred to this evening that have an interest in the matter, and I will personally discuss it with them.

We have repeatedly stated that existing public benefits will be protected in any transaction. I shall return to that point later. I also emphasise that the programme that we propose will take 10 years. It is not, as one Member suggested, a fire sale; it is a long and transitional but dramatic change in the ownership and management of Britain’s farms and woodlands. If we are not satisfied with any offer that comes forward, there will be no deal on the forest in question.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) demonstrated a considerable lack of true knowledge. [Interruption.] If Labour Members wait, they will hear the reality. She asserted that there was no information available about the area of ancient woodlands involved—it is 53,000 hectares, for her information—and, contrary to what she said, SSSIs are included in the mapping process. She also went on about Labour having sold only a net 4,000 hectares, but the fact is that it got rid of 9,000 hectares without adequate protection for public benefits.

[Mary Creagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

On the issue of—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I am not going to give way.

On the issue of funding, the reality is open for us to see in the Forestry Commission’s accounts. It costs £17 million a year to run the Forest Enterprise in England, excluding research and regulatory costs.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No.

We get just a £1 million surplus from commercial logging activity. That is one of the drivers of the change. The commercial timber sector tells us that if it could have access to our commercial forests, not the recreational ones, it could do better and would return the improvement to us through the lease.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No, I am not going to give way.

[Barry Gardiner]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I tabled a parliamentary question for named day answer on 31 January, seeking to elicit information from the Minister. My office phoned the Department today only to be told that it was waiting for the Minister to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, and it is not a matter to be dealt with now.

[Mr Paice]

Somebody referred to the opportunity for wind farms, and we have just heard some more.

A number of Members referred to people’s rights, and I wish to spend a few moments explaining where we are on access. Permissive rights have been mentioned, and I have to stress that very little of the forest estate carries such rights. I suspect that Members are confusing them with dedicated rights under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Some 2,000 hectares of land carries permissive rights, and that is all land that is held on 999-year leases. Of the land that we actually own, 90% has dedicated access, which cannot be extinguished. Indeed before transfer, we could and would enhance that provision to cover any forms of access not already covered by it.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby) suggested that the Government are weakening the Forestry Commission, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman because he has only just come into the Chamber.

The Forestry Commission will have its role altered over time, as this period transpires. We want it to concentrate on regulation, advice and research, and on promoting the wider planting of trees. Let us not forget that the under the last five years of the Labour Government, tree planting in this country fell by 60%.

A number of hon. Members referred to the Forest Stewardship Council. I can assure the House—I am happy to give this guarantee—that the council’s certification scheme will remain a condition if we transfer any forests that are currently subject to it, as they all are.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) understandably wanted assurances and called the issue of access “a deal-breaker”. I can assure him—I promise him—that access as it currently exists will be guaranteed. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Access is the key point in the hundreds of communications that I have received. Does the Minister agree that over the course of the consultation, the challenge for Ministers is to make the case on access to the hundreds and thousands of people who are e-mailing hon. Members?

[Mr Paice]

I cannot say it more clearly than I just did. We will guarantee existing rights of access on any land that is moved away from its current operation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham also rightly referred to jobs in his area—specifically to those at Egger—as did the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I do not often agree with the latter politically, but I respect his passionate belief in the interests of the working people of this country. I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman that the Government care about those jobs too. The announcement of job losses today is extremely sad and distressing, and we understand and sympathise with those who might lose their jobs, but that was not the result of our consultation.

[Mr Burley]

I represent Cannock chase, which is one of the great forests of England and important to everybody in the west midlands. Does the Minister agree that it is an historic forest and, as such, deserves heritage status?

[Mr Paice]

There will be lots of bids for heritage forest status. The criteria by which they will be judged are laid down in the consultation document. I fully recognise that Cannock chase has major attributes in that respect, as have other forests, but I am not at this stage going to start listing every single one.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No—I am not giving way anymore.

Finally, on jobs, I want to make this point. The Government believe that any commercial undertaking that leases parts of our forests for commercial purposes will want to increase commercial and economic activity. That is the best way to encourage job creation. People will not take forests on just to shut the gate—they would be unable to do so even if they wanted to—and leave it there; they will want to run that area as a commercial, job-creating business.

This debate was based on Opposition claims that range, frankly, from the spurious to the absurd. Not only do the Government not intend, as the Opposition motion suggests, to sell 100% of the forest estate; we could not do so, because we do not even own 58,000 hectares of it. The actual figures are in the document.

The Secretary of State and I have repeatedly stressed—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly, (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Neonicotinoid Pesticides

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing the debate. I say that seriously, despite the fact that I am in the position of having to reply.

None of us, as MPs, is unaware of the widespread concern, which has existed for a number of years, about our bee population. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, colony collapse disorder is not something new. Soon after the Labour Government were elected in 1997, I took part, in my earlier incarnation as Opposition spokesman challenging the Government, in a debate about bee health, on the specific issue of varroa. Unfortunately, the Government took no notice at all, and the varroa mite is now widespread—some would argue endemic—with the real long-term impact unknown.

The issue to which the hon. Gentleman has specifically drawn our attention—neonicotinoids—has recently returned to the headlines, and he is absolutely right to raise it. I certainly do not want to portray any suggestion of complacency on the matter. I will not go over the points, which we all fully understand, about the importance of honey bees and other non-vertebrate pollinators to our agricultural crop and horticultural industries. We must not be complacent; we must take things very seriously.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was running short of time, but he concluded his speech by rushing off a long list of questions, which I am afraid I did not have time to write down. I will happily undertake to respond to them when I read them in Hansard, but forgive me if I do not reply to them all now. One thing that is probably blatantly obvious, but which underlines all this, is that all pesticides are toxic. Even the naturally occurring ones that are approved in organic farming are toxic at some level. The question is about the level of usage, the accumulation and the other factors that determine whether that toxicity is a threat. Of course we accept that neonicotinoids, as much as any other pesticide, are toxic at certain levels and in certain doses.

[Martin Caton]

The fundamental point is that we have very strong evidence that even in tiny doses those particular systemic pesticides contribute to the demise of invertebrate populations. That has to be of great concern, and it often cannot be picked up in field trials, on which, understandably, most of our assessment is based.

[Mr Paice]

I have taken the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. I understand it and will try to deal with it as best I can, because I certainly do not want in any way to imply that I am ignoring it or, to use his words, that the Government are being complacent about it. As he and others have said, the Government take pesticide regulation very seriously. All pesticides are rigorously assessed before they are approved for use, although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that much of that information comes from the industry that developed them. However, the matter is open to public scrutiny after that by the advisory committee and the regulators, so if there were any implication that somehow those trial results were distorted intentionally, it would quickly come to light.

The conditions of use of a pesticide are set so that pesticides do not pose an unacceptable risk to people or to the wildlife in the countryside, which, of course, includes bees and other pollinators. I emphasise that there is a statutory code of practice about guidance to people who use pesticides on minimising the exposure of bees, including notifying local beekeepers 48 hours before their use.

We continue to fund research on pesticides and pollinators and in relation to monitoring the real-world impact of pesticides on bees. It is being considered as part of the wildlife incident investigation scheme, and we are adding those neonicotinoids that are not already covered to the programme of residues monitoring for honey.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly and understandably referred to the 2009 Buglife report. As he has said, Buglife basically took all the information that was available and reviewed it before publishing the report. The then Government fully reviewed that report and took advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and all the key research references were scrutinised and the implications considered. That involved drawing on the regulatory data set and any other publicly available information. The conclusion drawn at that time was that the Buglife report did not raise new issues—it would have been surprising if it had, given that it was simply going over all the information already held—and that it did not require changes to pesticide approvals.

[Martin Caton]

Is the Minister not concerned that we have discovered this month that the chemicals regulation directorate of the Health and Safety Executive, which was given the job, on behalf of the Government, of assessing the Buglife report, has still not completed its report and has not even completed collating the data? If we are really serious about dealing with this problem urgently, that is an appalling record. I do not blame the current Government alone—it is a failure of government.

[Mr Paice]

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the detail. His assertion is news to me, and I shall have to take it away with me. As he obviously appreciates, this is not my normal portfolio; I am covering for my noble Friend Lord Henley, who normally deals with bees.

What the Buglife report did do—there is no question about this—was indicate a gap in our knowledge on the effects of neonicotinoids on over-wintering bees. The point about that was right. We have supported the addition of studies on that issue to the European data requirements for pesticide regulation.

We continue to work with other regulators and to consider all the new evidence that emerges. We have discussed with James Cresswell of Exeter university his work on sub-lethal pesticide doses and bees, especially in relation to over-wintering. That is of interest, but as he himself fully acknowledges, questions remain about the environmental relevance of predominantly laboratory-based results. That is particularly relevant to the work to which the hon. Gentleman has referred by Henk Tennekes.

We are also, of course, aware of the work by Jeff Pettis in the United States, which is the origin of the article in The Independent to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, we have to recognise that Dr Pettis himself has challenged The Independent publicly about some of the assertions that it made. He has published the points on a website on that newspaper’s own blog. Forgive me, Mr Williams, but I think that I need to read out some aspects of that. Dr Pettis has stated:

“I noticed in your article that there is an implication that my research findings are perhaps being suppressed by the chemical industry. As the author of this study, I can tell you that the truth is that the review process on the paper has simply been lengthy, as is often the case, due to various factors, but that no outside forces are attempting to suppress this scientific information. The findings of an interaction between low level pesticide exposure and an increase in the gut pathogen Nosema were not unexpected; many such interactions are likely within the complex life of a honey bee colony. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with a lab study and what might occur in the field. Lab studies can give us insights into what may be occurring with beehives but we have yet to make this link. Honey bee health is complex and our findings support this. They do not provide a direct link to CCD colony losses but these results do provide leads for further study.”

I say that not to reject what has been claimed, but to put it into proportion. Even the work’s author rejects some aspects of the article that has caused so much understandable public concern recently.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am afraid I cannot give way any more.

The author has repeatedly said that finding such an interaction does not tell us what might happen in the field. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Gower has rightly said, it causes us to think about what further work needs to be done.

The European Commission is developing proposals for bee health, including research, surveillance and measures to understand and tackle the decline of wild and managed bees. Only yesterday, we discussed the issue at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, where I publicly supported the need to develop such measures. In particular, I raised the issue of neonicotinoids, which must be researched on a European basis. As several hon. Members have said, the situation is not unique to this country and applies elsewhere in Europe. In that respect, I need to correct the assertion made by several hon. Members that those products have been banned by some of the countries that have been mentioned. Germany, France, Slovenia and Italy have introduced various restrictions, but none has totally banned the use of those products. We will work with Europe heavily on this issue.

The insect pollinators initiative will provide £10 million—that was decided by the previous Government—to look at the decline of pollinators. DEFRA is contributing £2.5 million to that work, which will include a project run by Dundee university to look at the effect of sub-lethal pesticide exposure on the brain and behaviour of bees during navigation and communication. DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly launched the healthy bees plan in 2009 to protect and improve the health of honey bees over the next 10 years. As part of that, DEFRA recently announced funding to train beekeepers to protect colonies against pests and diseases. The National Bee Unit, which is part of our Food and Environment Research Agency, has also announced scientific research in conjunction with Aberdeen university on varroa.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because it is important that we have had this opportunity to debate the issue. The fact that so many of my colleagues from all parts of the House have been present for a half-hour Adjournment debate underlines the fact that this is a matter of interest across the House. I will undertake to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised in his concluding remarks. I must stress that we are certainly not complacent, and I would be very angry if there were any implication that we were. From my perspective as the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, I fully recognise the importance of bees to food production in this country. The last thing that I want to do is to jeopardise the role of bees in any way.

I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and am grateful to him for raising this issue. I hope that I have been able to give him some comfort that we are taking the issue seriously and that a number of actions are in play. Clearly, however, we still need a lot more information.

Question put and agreed to.

Biotechnology and Food Security

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Good morning, Mr Streeter. It is good to serve under your chairmanship. I welcome this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing it and raising the issue of food security. He highlighted, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), the challenges that the world will face during the next few decades.

I was going to refer to Professor Beddington’s comments about the perfect storm, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East has already done so, I will not repeat them. It is clear from this debate and many others that there is a growing recognition that many issues are coming together: climate change, population increase, population prosperity, and the consequent demand for more and better-quality food and the problem that due to climate change, some arable land may cease to be suitable for arable production. The coming together of those issues creates a huge challenge that affects many areas: the European situation, the single market, the competitiveness of our production and the interface between food science and our approach to innovation and technology, on which much of this debate has focused.

This is an important debate. I was impressed by the opening comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood about the desire to have a serious debate that eliminates much of the emotion, and indeed the emotional nonsense, that we sometimes hear, avoids the over-generalisation and simplification incorporated in many comments and addresses the issue seriously. The Government’s overall policy is to enhance the competitiveness and resilience of our food chain and, as I have said repeatedly, to reverse the decline in UK production.

However, we seem to be in an invidious position. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East referred to global food prices, specifically the spike of two years ago and the current all-time high. Obviously, one concern is the impact that that is having on the ability of consumers, particularly poorer consumers, to sustain a reasonable diet. Back home, Finance Ministers and Chancellors around the world are concerned about its inflationary impact. Yet at the same time, the rise in global food prices is in many ways a direct consequence of moving agricultural policy, not just in Europe but elsewhere, closer to the world market situation rather than maintaining the sorts of protectionist arrangement used in the past. Many have always argued that consumers overpay for food under the common agricultural policy, but now that we are not subsidising food production, they pay even more. Some of the simplistic arguments used in the past are not very accurate.

Some people argue that what we do in the UK is of little consequence as agriculture is not a big industry, and that in global terms we do not need to worry very much about it. I emphasise that that is not the Government’s view. The whole food chain contributes some £85 billion per annum to our economy, or 7% of gross domestic product, as well as 3 million jobs. Food manufacturing is the biggest individual manufacturing sector. It plays a major role in delivering our economic growth and, obviously, in the environmental impact of our food industry, so we want to support it in any way we can.

The long-term challenges that we have been discussing also offer great market and productivity opportunities for our agriculture. Achieving our food security objectives sustainably is also important to achieving the biodiversity outcomes that we all want to achieve, such as the convention on biological diversity to which we signed up in Nagoya a few weeks ago and, closer to home, our climate change objectives and millennium development goals.

As most Members have said, there is obviously a great EU angle on the issue, and I will return to that in a few moments in the context of genetically modified foods. As my hon. Friends have said, we have already achieved a tremendous amount in the 50 or 60 years since the second world war and the food shortages that caused countries in different parts of the world to develop their own forms of policy. Our guaranteed price system was introduced in 1947, and the EU intervention system was introduced when the common market was first formed.

The varieties of our major crop plants have improved massively. Initially, they improved predominantly in yield, then in disease resistance and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk said, in suitability for different climates, pest resistance and other aspects. That has all been achieved, but biotechnology opens up a whole new range of possibilities. The term “biotechnology”, as he also said, covers a multiplicity of different techniques. GM is often described, but biotechnology also includes genomics, cloning, the use of enzymes, marker-assisted selection and gene sequencing. As with all science, it is moving faster and faster. In the 1990s, the characterisation of the human genome took 10 years; our current technology could do it in two days. That is the rate of acceleration in scientific development.

There is no doubt that biotechnology has huge potential to provide quicker and more efficient developments in plant breeding. Biochemical or DNA testing can identify specific genes responsible for different traits, and biotechnologies such as marker-assisted selection or genetic modification offer further tools for ensuring that such genes can be used. However, it is important to emphasise that whatever aspect of biotechnology we consider, Government policy must be science-led and science-based. There should be no other basis for it.

The different technologies that I have listed pose different challenges. Some, like marker-assisted selection, do not seem to pose any risks and create little public concern. Others, such as GM, have raised concerns. Obviously, health and environmental safety must be absolute priorities when we consider GM technology. I believe that the combination of EU and UK risk assessment and regulatory regimes demonstrate that, and that we will proceed on that basis using the latest available evidence.

Much of this debate and many of the understandable challenges posed to me by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East relate to research. He knows full well the answers to some of the questions that he has asked me. I do not criticise him for that; it is a traditional form of opposition, as he knows that I cannot answer some of them. However, I will try to respond to all the points made.

I emphasise that the Government are spending about £400 million a year on agriculture and food research and are working directly with industry to support competitiveness and innovation in food through the Technology Strategy Board’s sustainable agriculture and food innovation platform, which the Labour Government introduced. That was a good idea and a good innovation. Funded jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Technology Strategy Board is investing up to £90 million over five years to provide match funding to industry for technological research and development. I cannot narrow down precisely how much of that is spent on GM, but it is part of the totality of spending.

On the wider issue of research spending, as the hon. Gentleman knows, clearly research could not be immune to the pressures of reducing the public deficit, but the fact that the Government have maintained spending in cash terms over the whole spending review demonstrates the importance that we attach to it commensurate with all the other demands for public spending.

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the private sector. Obviously, what the TSB is doing with match funding is important, but the role of the private sector must continue to increase. In fact, a large proportion of the development of GM technology has occurred in the private sector. That is the reality of where it has come from. We can be pretty critical of how at least one major plant breeder has handled the public relations aspect, which has caused some of the problems with public opinion on GM.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk mentioned the John Innes centre in Norwich, and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany is based in my constituency. Both are freestanding research organisations that are doing a tremendous amount of work. Some of their project work is funded by the Government, but much of it is funded by outside organisations.

[George Freeman]

On the question of funding for science, I endorse the Minister’s point about the relative protection for science funding provided in the recent settlement. My experience of talking with science research institutes is that they recognise that in a time when Government funding is severely constrained, the Government have done as much as could be expected to protect the core research budget. The point I want to make relates to the technology innovation centres, which are part of the Government’s policy for promoting integration between research and the private sector. Does the Minister agree that there might be a case for having a food science-related TIC to try to pull together our strengths in places such as Norwich, Reading, Liverpool and other centres that might otherwise fall between the stools?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. As he knows well, there is already a huge amount of collaboration between the organisations I have mentioned and other important plant science centres, but it is an area where one can never do too much. I entirely share his overall approach, which is that we need to do all we can to ensure that we deliver the maximum benefit and that there is no risk of duplication.

Before speaking specifically on GM, I wish to pick up on a couple of points that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East made on bioethanol, biofuels and their sustainability. I appreciate his point about the measures that we have already taken on palm oil. I am afraid that I cannot give him a figure off the top of my head for research into second generation ethanol and biofuels, but I will be happy to write to him on that, and on EU spend, with all the information I can give.

That obviously leads to the question of CAP reform and where we go from here. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we must concentrate CAP resources on moving agriculture forward, rather than on our current direct payment system—there is a degree of unanimity across the Benches on that—although in no way do we propose that the direct payment system should go in the short term, as that would destroy agriculture as we know it in this country. Clearly, however, we want to see a gradual shift away from that to more clearly identifiable public benefits, and in our view R and D is a key part of that. We definitely want to see more CAP expenditure spent on R and D, and I can assure him that that is part of our approach to reform, although it is terribly early days—we probably have a two or three-year programme of debate and discussion.

I will now turn specifically to genetic modification, an area of huge emotion and oversimplification. GM involves the insertion of foreign genes carrying a specific trait into an existing plant. It is the only technique—I differ slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood on his description of this point—that allows one to cross-breed genetic material from unrelated organisms, which means overcoming a specific barrier. It is not just a case of speeding up what would happen anyway, but involves doing things that could happen in nature only by a completely unpredictable mutation. The insect resistance that has been bred into maize, which has been of huge economic value to the industry, was achieved by taking a gene from a completely unrelated plant. The same was the case with the early work that made oilseed rape and soya resistant to the chemical glyphosate, thus allowing the overall crop to be sprayed. That required a gene from a plant that was resistant to be inserted into a plant that was not, so that it became resistant.

There is a great risk of over-generalising, and those who call for a moratorium or freeze on all GM work are missing the point. Every individual trait must be separately assessed and tested, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right about the importance of field testing before deciding whether to allow commercial production to proceed, because each is a unique development and one cannot make those generalisations.

I am afraid, Mr Streeter, that I am taking advantage of the fact that I have a little more time than is normally available, but I think that these are key issues. It is important to recognise that the traits that are the subject of GM are moving themselves. Critics saw the early tests as a way of simply putting more money into the hands of chemical companies or farmers, but we are now beginning to see traits in GM that are more relevant to the consumer and the wider community, such as the work on genes that encourage high omega fats in oilseed rape and other plants. Drought resistance and the ability of plants to grow with much less water have been referred to. That will be of huge benefit to the developing world in the short term, but because of climate change it could also become far more relevant in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood suggested, the holy grail in such research is to breed a grain that is leguminous. That brings us back to sustainability, which must be a cornerstone of agricultural development in coming years.

The Government are close to finalising our overall policy on GM. It is a sensitive issue and obviously there are many views. We want to get it right, so the debate and the speeches that have been made this morning are timely. It is not desperately urgent, although we need to move on quickly. No commercial GM crops are being grown in this country at present. We had two research trials last year, one by the Sainsbury laboratory on blight-resistant potatoes and one by Leeds university on nematode-resistant potatoes. The issue of vandalism was raised in the debate, and I am pleased to say that those trials were not attacked—security for them was paid by BBSRC, and a little was paid by DEFRA. I share my hon. Friend’s view that if we want to know whether there is a risk with those crops we need to test them, rather than rip them up in the first place. I want to assure the House that if we decide to approve the planting of GM crops, it will be based not only on science, but on strict criteria for crop segregation, both in the field and post-harvest, together with effective rules and protocols on the liability that comes from that, and my hon. Friend referred rightly to organic farm production in that context.

One issue is particularly topical—imported animal feed. The world price of grain and soya has rocketed in recent months, meaning that our livestock producers are facing immense problems in obtaining sufficient volumes of GM-free soya, which is what they have to use. That is partly because the current EU rules for the import of soya do not allow for any contamination by an unapproved GM product, which means that most shippers are unwilling to take the risk because the detection of even the slightest amount of GM product would mean that the whole consignment was rejected. The EU has tabled a proposal that would effectively set a 0.1% tolerance level in grain imports for certain GM materials that were not yet approved in the EU, but that were in the approval process. That seems to be a common-sense way of proceeding that would reduce the risks posed to grain imports by the present rules. No decision has been made and we are looking at the detail of the proposal before the vote in February. As I have said, we think it is eminently sensible.

Insect-resistant maize and starch potatoes are being grown commercially elsewhere and other crops are in the regulatory pipeline. Overall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said, Europe grows far fewer GM crops than most of the rest of the world. Those crops now cover more than 9% of the world’s arable land—an area five times the size of the UK—and involve 25 countries. We cannot ignore those facts. That has all happened in about 10 years, and production is rocketing year on year.

It is clear that many farmers see the advantages of using GM, and many experts such as those at the Royal Society believe that it could provide benefits if it is used safely and responsibly. However, it is not a panacea. We should not kid ourselves that GM will be the answer to all our problems—the answer to Professor Beddington’s perfect storm—but it could well be one of the tools that we need to address the longer-term challenges of global food security, climate change and making agriculture more sustainable.

That is why the Government are determined to move forward with these issues. We do not believe that we can put our hand up and say “stop” to science at any point. We have to see what scientific development is producing, and ensure that it is safe for humans and the environment and that we have the necessary robust evidence on which to make decisions. We believe that GM has a potential benefit in the context of food security, and we are looking hard at developing a final policy to enable it to be realised.

Few people have referred to the role of the consumer, which is critical in all of this. The law already states that any foodstuff that contains genetically modified material has to declare it if the GM in a particular ingredient exceeds 0.9%. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood mentioned pizza. If more than 0.9% of the soya—not the pizza but the soya in the pizza—is GM, it has to be declared.

Consumers have information with which to make their choices. Sadly, as my hon. Friend and others have said, those choices are often influenced by emotion based on some rather hysterical press notices. I hope that this fairly short but important discussion will enable us to move the debate on. It is more the format in which it ought to be carried on, and I hope that the more serious parts of our media will engage in genuine discussion and debate about the benefits of using and potential concerns about GM products.

Sir John Beddington will be publishing the foresight study, “Global Food and Farming Futures”, in two or three weeks’ time. I cannot say much about it as I do not want to pre-empt what he will say, but I know that the report will have a great deal to say about the role of GM in future food production.

Mr Streeter, I am sorry for usurping the opportunity to speak longer than is normal in these debates, but this is an important issue. GM has an important role to play in our future food security, for all the reasons that colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have given, but we have to take precautions. We must ensure that individual elements are properly assessed and measured before we take risks with either our food safety or our environment. As I said, my Government hope to introduce our own overall proposals in the near future. I am grateful to you for chairing this debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood for raising it.

Single Payment Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

In my statement of 1 December 2010, Official Report, column 77WS, I promised to keep the House informed of the progress of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) towards its 2010 single payment scheme (SPS) payment targets.

As at Wednesday 15 December, RPA has made payments totalling some £1.16 billion to 85,060 farmers (80.6%). The agency continues to strive to meet its target to pay 85% of eligible claimants by the end of December. RPA has also now issued letters to all those farmers who are unlikely to be paid this month.

Progress toward the December target will be reviewed again today by the RPA oversight board, with a view to ensuring the money reaches farmers as early as possible while also protecting taxpayers’ interests. Joined by new permanent RPA chief executive (Mark Grimshaw) from 17 January, the board will focus the agency’s attention in the new year on the still more challenging target of making 95% of the value of SPS payments by the end of March 2011. I will continue to keep the House informed.

Intensive Dairy Farming

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Phillips]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that at the election all three main parties promised a farming ombudsman, and that the Minister intends to introduce one. Given the constituency that I come from, I hope that that will happen soon.

Be in no doubt: we need a farming ombudsman, and not just for dairy farmers. We all hear tales about how supermarkets in particular put pressure on farmers so that they can improve their bottom line. Consumers who purchase food at those supermarkets simply do not know about that; incidentally, I believe that they would be disgusted were they to know the full truth.

We need a farming ombudsman, and, if it is not out of order or inappropriate, perhaps the Minister would confirm that we will get one in due course, and that it will be soon. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams).

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

My hon. and learned Friend has just used a phrase that I would not wish to gain currency. I can confirm happily that the Government are committed to introducing a grocery ombudsman, but he used the words “farming ombudsman”. That is not what is under discussion. I am sorry, but I wanted to make that correction.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. At some point, we may need to have another debate about the scope of the ombudsman’s jurisdiction and powers, but perhaps we can leave that to one side for the remainder of today’s debate.

I said at the outset that this debate is not primarily about the specific proposals for Nocton, but one aspect of intensive dairy farming is that it can adversely affect local communities in several ways. As I have seen from my postbag, the ongoing application for the proposed farm at Nocton is almost universally opposed by the communities in which it would be sited, and by those who have lived in settled farming communities for all their lives. This is not nimbyism—at least it is not just nimbyism. It is a legitimate desire to maintain recognisable rural communities away from the hurly-burly of the industrialised practices that are associated with such farms, just as they are associated with light or heavy industry.

Also, let us not forget the slurry: cows produce slurry, which must be disposed of. Digesters are part of the answer for such operations, but significant quantities of dirty water remain to be disposed of either through environmentally-unfriendly tankering operations or through discharge, which, unless carefully managed, runs the risk of polluting aquifers.

As far as the opposition in my constituency to Nocton is concerned, the problem emphatically is not exclusively about odour—an odour which those of us who live in the countryside are used to and, indeed, of which we are rather fond. Effluent contains pathogens and other harmful substances, including residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines. The use of anaerobic digestion to process slurry cannot mitigate the entire problem, particularly when dealing with waste from a large number of cows.

This may not be a problem at present in Lincolnshire—although it is worth noting that it is one of the driest counties in the country—but the fact is that this country and the world face increasing pressure on water resources. Intensive dairy farming units would put a great deal of strain on those resources, as they use large quantities of water. Dairies such as those proposed for Nocton can cause strain on local water resources. I venture to suggest that, if this country were to go down the road of intensive dairy farming, the Minister might wish to regulate where such farms can be sited, given local water resources.

Another reason why local communities are right to be concerned about proposals for large-scale dairy operations—I shall end my substantive comments today with this—are the traffic issues associated with any form of industrialised process, whether in the farming industry or any other. Large numbers of cows that are milked for high yields produce large quantities of milk that need to be transported, and require deliveries of all manner of feed and other products associated with their maintenance and support. In areas where traffic is already an issue, the strain that would be placed on existing infrastructure would be, at best, undesirable.

In areas where traffic is not an issue, perhaps because of their rural nature, the position would be just as bad. Additional traffic movements, particularly of heavy and slow-moving vehicles, could contribute to accidents. Communities in those areas are not used to such traffic, and there is not the infrastructure to deal with the issues surrounding the additional movements. To some extent, that is certainly the case at Nocton, where such issues rightly concern many of my constituents.

The solution to all that, as matters are at present, is that we need to make careful inquiries about the mega-dairy bandwagon and prevent it from gaining steam. At the same time, we must recognise that the necessary price of that is developing and paying properly for the remaining existing dairy farming industry.

We need a rural economy based on sustainable, conventional dairy farming, which includes farmers breeding robust cows that retain the capacity to look after themselves—cows grazed on pasture during the grazing season, and farmers striving for and achieving greater longevity for their animals, producing valuable male calves that can be reared economically for beef.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am grateful to be serving under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Leigh. I start obviously, but genuinely, by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for securing the debate. He feels strongly about this issue, which is obviously precipitated by his constituency. It is a matter of great concern, as we all understand and has been demonstrated in the Chamber this morning. I have received countless letters and e-mails from people all over the country expressing concern, as I am sure other Members have.

If I may, I shall make a slightly provocative statement. For the past 30 years or so, all political parties and consumer organisations have called for the dismantling of agricultural protection, in whatever form it took, and for a move to a market-based system, because the consumer pays too much for food under protectionist systems. We have moved a long way in that direction over the past few years, and the debate today is the consequence of that move.

What we have heard in the debate is almost a plea to go backwards. We have heard that consumers would pay a bit more for their milk to protect farmers, but that is a bit like the letters we get from people who say they would rather pay more tax than have the funding to their children’s school cut. However, the reality, as we all know, is that they will not pay more tax if they are given the option, and I am afraid that it is the same with dairy farming.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) referred absolutely rightly to what happened after we banned veal crates, and the same applied with sow stalls, when the pig industry was decimated. We simply exported those standards. Units in the pig and poultry industries have become larger, with fewer individual proprietors, and concern has been expressed that milk will go the same way.

The reality, of course, is that we have imported pig meat, veal and other commodities from other countries because it is cheaper to produce it abroad. As my hon. Friend made absolutely clear, that is what consumers wanted. The only protection against that is not to raise our standards or to instigate some form of import control, which, as we all know, is illegal under European law and the World Trade Organisation.

[Neil Parish]

I do not believe that we want to go backwards, but this proposal wants to go forwards too fast. It will see off too many medium-sized farmers who can make a good living. That is my point.

[Mr Paice]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I will try to pick it up, although I will obviously not be able to respond to all the important points that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) have made.

There has been a bit of a battle for credibility between some of my hon. Friends as to who first milked cows. If I might join in, it is about 44 years since I first milked cows. In those days—we can all say “in those days”—most dairy herds were in the 20-to-30 cow bracket, and 100 was a massive herd. If we had had a debate about mega-dairies in those days, we would have been talking about 100 cows.

The average herd in England is now 113 cows. There are lots of herds with more than 500 cows; one has 2,000 cows and several have more than 1,000 cows. The world has moved on, and no Government of any colour—we have obviously had all shades over the past 44 years—have blown the whistle and said, “This is too big.”

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Minister is right to have identified, as others have, the perverse European rules that force us into a situation where our farmers are out-competed by farmers importing substandard products from elsewhere in Europe. Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged to challenge those rules, and my question is simply whether the Government still have any appetite to do so on behalf of our farmers and food security groups. It would be welcomed by farmers across the board if that pledge was fulfilled.

[Mr Paice]

Without wishing to duck that question, I should say that trade issues are, as my hon. Friend is well aware, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Obviously, however, we would wish to pursue as best we can commitments made by the Prime Minister before the election.

Let me move on to the point about competition in the domestic market and about supermarkets, which all my hon. Friends have raised in various ways. First, let me reaffirm that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to bring in the supermarket code adjudicator. We will call it an adjudicator because, compared with existing ombudsmen, it is not strictly an ombudsman.

I urge those of my hon. Friends who share my view that the sooner we introduce the adjudicator the better, to press the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills because this is his legislation. We will proceed as quickly as possible, but we need to be absolutely honest with ourselves and with farmers that this proposal will not in itself lead to a price rise; it is about ensuring that we have fair and transparent terms of trade and about enforcing the code, which has been in operation since February. We must not be accused of misleading people into thinking that the adjudicator will somehow make everything all right.

My hon. Friends said a lot about supermarkets, so I will not go further into that issue. However, we also need to look at processors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, certain processors have massively bid for contracts to process and bottle for supermarkets. They then pass on to the producers the results of what is, in many ways, over-bidding. We are now in the absurd situation where the farm-gate price paid for milk that goes into liquid products or relatively high-value cheese products is lower than that which people could afford to pay if they were going to convert that milk into skimmed milk powder, which is the lowest-priced global commodity—although, even then, the global price for the raw milk is about 27p or 28p a litre.

The Government are, of course, committed to the concept of free trade and open markets, and the Opposition probably largely share that fundamental belief. We do not believe in interfering in how business operates, but it behoves business to operate a fair market arrangement.

I cannot stand here and say that the Government will never intervene if we clearly see unfair practices going on. We hope that the adjudicator will resolve all that, but let me make it clear to the dairy processing and retail sectors that it behoves them to operate a fair market. They must recognise that if they do not, we will, as hon. Members have frequently said, lose the British dairy industry, whatever the type of housing, to overseas competitors. The result will be ever-more volatile prices.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more.

People would not have the cheap liquid milk that they want, because, as we all know, importing liquid milk is always expensive given its bulk cost. As a result, therefore, business will find that it is operating against consumer interests in the long term.

That reminds me of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made about imports and exports. He is right about the figures for liquid milk, but virtually all our liquid milk exports actually go over the Irish border, from Northern Ireland to southern Ireland, where they are made into cheese before coming back into the UK market.

Overall, our dairy market is massively reliant on imports of dairy products, which is why I personally believe—there is no strong evidence one way or the other—that the fear that a mega-dairy will destroy smaller dairy farmers is not necessarily justified. There is huge scope in this country to improve and expand our dairy industry. With the exception of Ireland, we grow the best grass anywhere in Europe, and we should be competitive. It is my job to try to create that competitiveness.

I am clearly running short of time, and I cannot respond to all the points that have been made. However, as my hon. and learned Friend opened the debate, I must emphasise that, as has frequently been said, I have no powers to intervene in any application. Issues to do with traffic, pollution and noise are for the local council to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park talked about my using my influence on the Secretary of State if an application went to appeal, but that would be seen as illegal and would be wide open to judicial challenge, so I am afraid that I cannot accept that invitation, much as I might wish to.

In conclusion, the Government understand the great public concern about this issue and about the changes to cattle—a lot of genetic improvement has taken place—and we accept, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, that there is a need for research. That is why we have commissioned research—the previous Government commissioned some of it, and we are very happy with that—from the Scottish Agricultural College on improving the robustness and welfare of cows through the development of breeding indices, as well as a further study on the management and welfare of continuously housed cows.

If those studies demonstrate that the Government need to act on welfare codes, or in any other way, we will, of course, have to consider that, but I do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of those studies. The Government believe in being led by scientific evidence; we will examine those research studies when they come out and we will act if necessary. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving me the opportunity to discuss this matter.