Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I can certainly confirm that. The 2006 Act provides a duty of care to animals, which includes welfare provisions. We will rigorously enforce those measures to ensure that the welfare of farmed animals is maintained.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the greatest problems for dairy farmers is the retention and disposal of slurry, especially in poor weather conditions. What steps is the Minister taking to help to ensure that farmers can dispose of slurry in the poor conditions we face.

[Mr Heath]

Members are being very inventive in their use of questions today. This is a real issue: many of us find it frustrating that slurry disposal is dictated by date rather than good husbandry practice. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I have extended the period for spreading slurry in England to the greatest extent I can within the regulations. I cannot do more than that, but we are working with the industry to find the best possible ways of helping farmers to dispose of slurry, which they cannot currently spread on wet fields.

Fisheries

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and, in anticipation of her speech, the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), for bringing this debate to the House. It is a very important one for those of us who represent fishing villages. I represent the second largest working fishing village in the Province—Portavogie. This topic is close to my heart. My brother worked in the fishing industry and I have many friends who have done likewise. It is close to my heart and close to the hearts of those who are involved. In fact, it sometimes breaks our hearts when we hear what the fishermen have to go through and the trials that they have to deal with because of the onerous attentions of Europe. The film “The Perfect Storm” and the television programme “Deadliest Catch” come to mind. They tell the story of what the fishermen do, in film and documentary, showing its practical and physical nature. They put the dangers into perspective.

For the first time ever, I have been contacted by supermarkets that wish to have an input into the matter. They say:

“We share the view that the”

common fisheries policy

“is in need of radical reform and presents a vital opportunity to protect the marine environment by introducing responsible practices across the industry. We welcome the ban secured on discards although we believe…this must be accompanied by investment in the development of fishing methods and gear to enable a more effective catch. We also believe that it is essential to overhaul the current overcapacity policy as it not effective. We are of the view that reform of the CFP needs to take a long term approach, not only to ensure that fish stocks are maintained at a sustainable level, but also to provide protection for the environment and a viable future”—

a sustainable future—

“for UK fishermen and their communities.”

It shows how bad, or perhaps how good, things are when, for the first time, the supermarkets are crying out for reform of the common fisheries policy. It is an indication of where we are.

Of all the many issues brought to my attention, the most important is, as usual, nephrops. Why? Because it is the most important catch for my constituency. For 2013, the European Commission has proposed a cut in the total allowable catch of 3,183 tonnes, or 15%. It had proposed a cut in the TAC of 19%, and, in the end, a roll-over was achieved. I would like to put my thanks to the Minister on record. He is industrious on behalf of the fishing industry, and we support him. We know how hard he fights for us and we congratulate him on that. I ask him in advance for the roll-over to be achieved for this year as well. If it is achieved for nephrops, it will bring dividends for Portavogie and the whole of Northern Ireland. We need to reach a target for the Northern Ireland fishing industry, particularly because there will be serious economic consequences if we are not successful.

The Irish sea fishery has remained strong and the cod industry has recovered. A sentinel fishery plan was recently developed by fishermen and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland. The fishermen donated some of their quota, which was used to see whether the cod resources in the Irish sea were improving. The fact is that they are better. There is more cod in the Irish sea than there has been for umpteen years. I have seen photographs of the cod, and the size of some of them clearly indicates that the cod industry is on the turn. We need Brussels to fall in behind us and accept the scientific evidence. There are scientists who will be able to prove it.

There is a lot to do. As the Minister will be aware, the indications at the moment suggest a 25% cut in the cod TAC for the year coming and a 25% cut in effort. Why should that happen when the industry is clearly showing signs of re-emergence and could be sustainable? We have a meeting with him on 17 December prior to him going to Brussels, so we, and other representatives, will have another opportunity to reinforce that point. For Irish sea cod, it is important that there is a victory for pragmatism and realism over dogmatic adherence to a flawed formula, because that is exactly what it is.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries has come to some conclusions. Its previous conclusion, on a proposal for an amendment to a plan, took 14 agonising months, so is it any wonder that we are frustrated with Europe and are sitting here wondering what is going to happen next year to our fishing industry?

I wish to comment on the maximum sustainable yield, but I am conscious of the time and trying to get as many of my points into my speech as I can. The principle of MSY is understandably maintained, but it continues to be a source of frustration that when reference is made to the 2002 Johannesburg world summit declaration on it, two words, though critically important, are conveniently forgotten: “where possible”. In other words, we do not have to dogmatically and blindly follow the strategy, but do it where possible. We find that that is thrown aside and discarded.

Discard is one of the biggest issues. Other Members will speak of it and some have already. How far has the practical delivery of the policy been taken into consideration? In the latest draft of the European Parliament’s report into the new CFP, which will be voted on on 18 December, one amendment seems to inject some realism into the process. It recognises that some species have a high survival rate when they are discarded, so “discarding” should be allowed to continue for such species. It is a step towards answering the question: what is a discard? The industry does not for one second oppose a discard ban, but such a policy must reflect and consider the practical implications.

On fishing gear, assuming the entire EU fleet is managed at the same level as that of the UK, the size of a vessel or, within environmental considerations, the gear it uses to catch quotas should not matter. It should be left to the catchers, with member state Administrations, to decide the most efficient way to harvest the catch. I would be amazed if any member states supported the creation of yet more bureaucracy—as if they do not have enough of it.

The Minister had a chance to respond to a question on marine protected areas—or MPAs—at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions today. Some of us are concerned about how they will happen and their impact on the fishing industry. There seems to be a great zeal to include 50% of territorial waters in a network. I am not convinced that that is entirely practical or right. If I had had the chance to ask him a supplementary question, I would have asked what consideration had been given to the concerns of fishing organisations and the industry in the proposals.

I shall comment quickly on the fixed quota allocation. The CFP should not interfere with arrangements that have been successfully operating in member states, including the UK, for years. For example, in the UK, transferrable quotas—swapping and leasing—has helped to reduce discards; where trawler A catches more cod than it has a quota for, it can sometimes transfer cod to trawler B. There seem to be indications coming from Europe that it intends to stop that.

I support regionalisation and look forward to it coming to Northern Ireland. I hope that we can make it work: I believe we can. It will be a significant help for us and our industry. As I have told the Minister, we need to ensure that the decisions on the MPAs include protection for the fishing industry and the boats and for a sustainable industry in future. We will meet him on 17 December, before he goes to Brussels, and we will have an opportunity to put other proposals forward through Diane Dodds MEP and local representatives. I support the fishing industry, as I know the Minister does.

Ash Dieback Disease

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

No, I shall make progress.

We had a 15-minute briefing from the Secretary of State last Wednesday, for which I am grateful, and we discussed the spread of the disease with Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientist. A document containing 10 key scientific facts was produced last Wednesday. Bullet point 10 said:

“Wind-blown spores may be dispersed up to 20-30 kilometres, (high confidence)”.

I was therefore surprised at the briefing to hear that the infection had blown in on the wind across the channel and the North sea, even though the channel is 30 km wide at its narrowest point. I was even more surprised, as the week went on, to learn that it had blown hundreds of miles across the North sea to infect mature trees in Northumberland and Scotland.

The key scientific facts document is quite clear:

“Longer distance spread occurs via infected plants or potentially via wood products”.

That would explain the infection in the south-west that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is worried about. However, it is politically inconvenient to have a disease which Ministers knew was in the country, with saplings left to infect their wild and mature cousins. I grew suspicious when I realised that the Forestry Commission's key scientific facts, published on Wednesday, changed over the weekend. Bullet point 10 now says:

“Wind-blown spores cause the disease to spread up to 20-30 km per year”.

The inconvenient fact that the wind blows the spores just 20 to 30 km has completely disappeared. A whole new fact, however, has emerged:

“On occasions, spores may disperse much further on the wind.”

However, unlike every other key scientific fact that is categorised as low, medium or high confidence, there is no scientific reference to back up this new scientific fact, because there is none. As yet, I have not seen any evidence to back up Ministers’ claims about the wind. The disease has moved slowly and predictably across Europe, yet now it has developed new powers to cross great seas on the wind.

Is an alternative scientific theory possible? Is it not possible that ash dieback has spread to mature trees in Northumberland and Scotland from the infected saplings that were planted out last winter and on which the fungus fruited this summer? It is certainly possible, and I would argue more probable than those gusts of wind.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Nurseries have indicated that hundreds of thousands of saplings that they imported from Europe came in because of the “chaotic and unpredictable” system of grants for tree planting on the UK mainland. Is the hon. Lady aware of that? If so, does she think that the disease and the reasons for its spread go much deeper than they appear to do?

[Mary Creagh]

One can argue about the system for woodland grants, but we would argue that it may be much cheaper to grow the ash saplings abroad, which is perhaps one of the reasons landowners choose to buy them from abroad. It is also perhaps why the Horticultural Trades Association wanted the Government to regulate back in 2009, so that there was a level playing field in the industry and so that it did not impose its own voluntary moratorium, allowing others to import cheaper saplings and undercut the market.

What happens next? The Forestry Commission has conducted a tree survey over 29,000 hectares, an area the size of Wales. It has sampled four woodland sites in each 100 square kilometres, giving us a rough idea of where to look next for the disease. As the surveys continue this winter, more disease sites will be found. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will he now review the scientific advice he has been given on other tree diseases? Does he have any plans to restrict trade in other species of trees on a precautionary basis? Does his import ban apply to resistant strains of ash species, which are now present in Denmark and, I believe, Lithuania?

Secondly, have the detection and management of the disease been hampered by the cuts to the Forestry Commission? Its budget is being cut from £47.5 million in 2010-11 to £36.2 million in 2014-15. Some 530 staff posts have already been cut and seven regional offices closed. Thirty-eight posts have been cut in Forest Research, with another 22 earmarked to go. These are the scientists and experts who lead the fieldwork on tree health, and they are in the front line in our fight against this disease. Will the Minister review their posts? What assessment has he made of the impact of his Government’s cuts to the Forestry Commission on tackling tree disease?

Thirdly, in 2009, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, the former Secretary of State, the Forestry Commission established a biosecurity programme board, bringing together the industry, NGOs, Forest Research, the Scottish Government, and the Food and Environment Research Agency. What has happened to that board? It appears to have met just twice—in November 2009 and July 2010. The minutes of the final meeting on the Forestry Commission website show that forestry staff had concerns about the Government’s publicity freeze and cancellation of much of the publication budget, yet I know from my discussions over the weekend that the board appears to have continued meeting informally. Was it affected by the re-organisation and cuts at the Forestry Commission?

The Secretary of State told the BBC last Friday that he is re-ordering his Department’s priorities and said:

“There will be some things we do in DEFRA now that we are going to have to stop doing.”

What are those things? And how does he know that not doing them is not storing up a fresh disease problem in the future in another area? Other areas of DEFRA will be quaking as they anticipate fresh cuts on top of the worst settlement of any Government Department.

What contact has the Minister had with councils that are in the front line of dealing with this disease? What advice has he provided to them about council parks? Should they be undertaking surveys of their own trees? The Local Government Association has informed lead officers, but nothing seems to be coming out of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman chairs the Science and Technology Committee, which I know will want to look at this issue in more detail. I invite it, however, to look at the totality of spend in this area, not all of which goes through the Forestry Commission—there are other heads. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at that spend, as I am sure he will, and come to an objective view about how much is being spent on this important matter.

On Friday 26 October, the consultation, which I mentioned, closed. It demonstrated overwhelming support for import and movement restrictions, and on Monday 29 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a ban on the movement of ash from anywhere that is not a designated pest-free area—I should point out that nowhere is labelled a designated pest-free area. There is now a criminal offence, carrying a maximum fine of £5,000.

On 24 October—during the consultation period—Chalara was confirmed in the wider environment in East Anglia. The trees had no apparent connections to nurseries. Since that finding, the Government have taken action on an unprecedented scale to tackle the problem. At the beginning of November, we initiated a rapid survey of the whole of Great Britain. More than 500 people worked around the clock to survey 2,500 10 km squares for signs of disease. That massive undertaking was completed by 7 November, and gave us an initial picture of the distribution of ash dieback caused by Chalara. We have also received valuable intelligence from organisations including the Country Land and Business Association and the Woodland Trust, which has mobilised its members to look for signs of the disease.

[Jim Shannon]

The Northern Ireland Assembly has adopted additional safeguards to ensure that there is no infiltration of ash plants. It has adopted a “Fortress Northern Ireland” approach—in other words, nothing gets in and nothing gets out. Perhaps that has happened in the past, but even with those strict rules and legislation, there is an outbreak in Leitrim in the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister confirm and assure the House that every step is being taken to stop ash dieback in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that there is direct consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

[Mr Heath]

I can indeed confirm that. Ministers or officials from all three Administrations have been involved in every one of our consultation meetings on the subject. We want to ensure that they have access to all the information we have, and that we have all the information they have. I ought to mention that we have been working closely with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, because we obviously need to co-ordinate our efforts to ensure that we understand how to treat cases, and particularly those in the wider environment, and how to preserve as far as possible the whole of the British Isles as a disease-resistant or disease-free area.

Lead Shot

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not expect to be called to speak so early, but the Whips of both main parties ensured that I was here on time.

I am country sports enthusiast and proud of it, as those who follow such issues will know. As we all know, Members of Parliament work in a stressful environment and it is essential that we have a release valve for that pressure. For me, that is country sports, and I take part whenever the opportunity arises. It does not arise as often as it did in the past, because I am in London. In my maiden speech, I said that the pheasants and ducks of my constituency would have two to three days a week when I would not be chasing them and they were probably more than gratified to learn that.

It is good to be out in the fields, pursuing country sports. That was how I grew up. I remember my cousin, Kenneth Smyth from County Tyrone in the west of the Province, giving a new meaning to the phrase “pigeon post”. When I was a young boy, he would send wood pigeons to me in the east of the Province in Ballywalter. They took two or three days in the post—they came first class—and although sometimes they were not palatable, they were okay when cooked. I survived. That is the truth, and “pigeon post” for me clearly meant a dead pigeon coming from the west of the Province to the east.

I have been eating shot pigeon for years, and pheasant and duck, too, and it has never done me any harm. However, I am prepared to accept the lead shot ban and wait until all the information has come in and been assessed by the lead shot working group. Members might therefore be wondering why we are having this Adjournment debate, and I have secured it because we need to present a balanced view given how the issue is portrayed by certain papers and magazines across the country. There are those who have created a scare without waiting for the full results to come out and I wanted to ensure that the House heard both sides of the argument. I have therefore been in touch with shooting sports organisations as well as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and I am prepared to give a balanced review of the issue. I state again that there is no final result yet, but we need balance in the debate and in the argument and we must ensure that all points of view are heard.

The use of lead shot is being considered because of issues that have been raised about environmental and human health effects. As they are in question, I support any investigation. I would not want to be like those doctors who backed cigarettes in the past, saying that they were good for people’s health when the reverse is patently true. However, neither would I like to be like those who jump in with two feet, causing a needless fuss and a scare. A balance should be struck between those two reactions and it is that balance that I seek to provide to the House today.

Regulations across most of Europe prevent lead from falling in wetlands and shooters support that. Some shooters were perhaps not all that pleased when lead shot was banned and they had to turn to steel, but they did it successfully, honestly and truthfully. Steel shot is now the preferred choice of many. Many bird watchers are also bird shooters and understand that sustaining a good environment is essential for both sports. I have been informed, however, that there is little evidence to suggest that lead, when used outside wetlands, causes any significant damage to bird populations.

The unique way that certain water birds feed means that some species are susceptible to ingesting lead if it is deposited in their feeding area and that has been highlighted as a source of poisoning for some wildfowl species, including several migratory birds. It important to consider all the factors that affect migratory birds, however, as the ingestion of lead might have happened not in this country but in other countries. To address that problem, the African-Eurasian water bird agreement, or AEWA, aimed to reduce the amount of lead ammunition used in wetland areas where such wildfowl feed. The feeding habits of non-wetland birds are very different, as they are not affected by lead in the silt layers of wetlands.

However, in order to comply with the AEWA, we have rightly prohibited the use of ammunition containing lead for the killing of certain species in specific areas. In England and Wales—we are here in the mother of Parliaments representing the four regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the use of lead shot is prohibited below the high water mark of ordinary spring tides, over specified sites of special scientific interest and for the shooting of the following species, regardless of where they occur. The species are mallard, widgeon, gadwall, shoveler, teal, pochard, pintail, tufted duck, and golden eye and the four species of goose—greylag, pink-footed, white-fronted and Canada—but also golden plover and coots and moorhen. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the use of lead shot is prohibited over wetlands, which are defined there as any areas of foreshore, marsh, fen, peatland with standing water, regularly or seasonally flooded fields and other water sources whether they be natural or manmade, static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt. I am trying to make it clear that legislation exists to protect water birds from this very threat. Action has been taken here at Westminster and in the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Reading through the report, however, there appear to be many inconsistencies and inferences are made from the testing of a very small number of birds. Perhaps work has not been done on the large number of birds that would amount to true evidence for the case.

The Countryside Alliance would say that many of the wildfowl tested in the study are migratory species—that is its opinion; many of us would agree with that—and as such have travelled many miles from different locations. Although the Wildlife and Wetland Trust provides assurances that these birds ingested the lead in the UK, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is simply no way of proving that. Moreover, lead poisoning can come from many sources, as previous research has shown that birds from urban areas have higher levels of lead in their blood. Lead can be got from the water and from other things. This is not acknowledged, and perhaps it should have been.

For those species that are non-migratory, it must be asked how the birds, which were tested only from wildlife and wetland trust reserves, obtained the lead shot while resident on the reserves. As the reserves are not shot over, the most probable explanation is that the lead was dropped in those areas before any legislation was introduced.

Sir Peter Scott was the founder of the Wildlife and Wetland Trust and a very keen wildfowler—indeed, one of the greatest wildfowlers that we have ever had. I have read some of his books, and they are most interesting. A bust of Sir Peter Scott is displayed at Castle Espie in Comber in my constituency of Strangford. It was put there in recognition of his good work and his contribution. He would have used lead ammunition in his day, long before the legislation was changed and lead shot was banned. This is further evidenced by the fact that no evidence of any other shot type was found in the birds’ gizzards. After 10 years of use of steel shot, would there not be some steel shot in the gizzards of the birds? There does not seem to be, but given that alternatives have been widely used for more than 10 years, this would be expected, and it further confirms that birds obtained the shot from the reserves. However, the Countryside Alliance has informed me that it is upholding the ban and will read the final report in full before making any representations.

I have been contacted by the Wildlife and Wetland Trust regarding its fears about the effects of lead on the animal and human body and, for the sake of parity I, like others, have carefully considered its point of view. It states:

“Lead is toxic to all animals including humans. Even low levels of exposure affect animals and no threshold has been identified below which the effects of lead cannot be seen. The vast majority of shot fired from shotguns falls into the environment, and thus, in the case of lead, causes long term cumulative contamination. Wildfowl, and other birds, ingest lead shot that has been deposited in their feeding areas (such as wetlands and terrestrial habitats including agricultural land), probably mistaken for grit or food.”

It is really nothing new, to be fair. Lead poisoning from shot ingestion has been known to kill wildfowl for more than a century. It has happened for more than 100 years and long before that. In Europe it has been estimated that approximately 1 million wildfowl from 17 species and just short of 9% of the wildfowl population could die every winter from eating the lead that is already in the seashore and the sea.

Although some of the information on which the estimate was based is old, and shot ingestion rates may now be higher or lower in some species, none the less mortality is high. Not only does lead poisoning cause considerable avoidable wildfowl suffering and mortality, concern has been expressed about its potential to contribute to the decline of certain common wildfowl species; for example, the pochard and the pintail, both of which are amber-listed. They are BOCC—birds of conservation concern—to use the correct terminology.

Lead poisoning is known to be a serious threat to certain globally threatened European wildfowl, in particular the white-headed duck. It also causes sub-lethal effects in many other birds and represents a significant welfare problem. We are not walking away from that; we are trying to address the issues and make a balanced argument.

In recent times, a body of evidence has been accumulated detailing lead poisoning in terrestrial birds, including upland game birds, which ingest spent lead shot when feeding in shot-over habitats, and the raptors that prey on or scavenge game species, thereby ingesting lead fragments from ammunition. Eight of the non-wildfowl species documented as ingesting lead or suffering lead poisoning from ammunition sources in the wild breed regularly in the United Kingdom, and are red or amber-listed as BOCC. Clearly it is important to avoid or reduce mortality in those species from all causes.

The negative human health impacts from lead are well established and have resulted in policies to reduce exposure, such as its removal from paint or petrol. The potential risks associated with consuming game shot with lead ammunition have received more attention recently, following an international conference held in the USA by the Peregrine Fund in 2008. As a small proportion of the lead from gunshot fragments is invisible to the human eye, consumers of game may inadvertently eat small lead shards or particles.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even in the most pessimistic estimations a normal human being would have to eat a colossal amount of game even to register in the danger zone? May I offer a crumb of comfort? I suspect I am one of the few Members of Parliament who actually carries 15 bits of lead in my left knee. It was shot there when I was 15 and does not seem to have had any ill effects on my health.

[Jim Shannon]

I read the hon. Gentleman’s excellent article in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine last week. It shows his commitment to country sports over the years. The lead in his leg has done him no harm, just as the lead in the pigeons, ducks and pheasants that I have eaten has done me no harm.

Research in the United Kingdom showed that a high proportion of the game sold for human consumption had lead concentrations exceeding the European Union maximum. We are well aware of the issue. The European Food Safety Authority expert on contaminants published a scientific opinion on lead in food and has stated that other animals in the food chain—sheep, pigs and poultry—carry lead too. The report details the potential health risks that may be associated with a diet rich in game, but people would need to eat a lot of pheasants or venison every year before they were affected, or in my case, a lot of wood pigeons. They would have to eat a dozen a day.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for getting this important subject on to the Order Paper. It is important that the House is aware of the issues he is raising. Does he agree, however, that there could be a self-created crisis by elements in various agencies who want to justify their existence? They point to potential problems if we eat too much of something, but by definition too much of anything is bad for us.

[Jim Shannon]

It is good to put things into perspective. Too much wine is bad for us. Too much chocolate is bad for us. Too many chips are not always that good for us either. As someone who ate plenty of sweet stuff and is now a diabetic, I know that the sweet stuff I ate over the years was not good for me. Many in the land have to look at those things too; my hon. Friend’s words put things into perspective.

An article I read last week also helps to put the issue into perspective. It referred to the Food Standards Agency, and there was an important reply:

“There is lead in all foodstuffs and we should see the purported risk of lead in game meat in a sensible perspective…There is no evidence of harm to those of us who eat game less than once every week. Compared with other meats wild game is low in fats and entirely natural, representing a healthy option to intensively reared products.”

That certainly makes for interesting reading. There is no better stuff to eat than game. If Members have not eaten a pheasant this year, they should try one. If they have not had duck, now is the time. If they have not had wood pigeon, they should go down the shop and buy one. They will enjoy it; it is excellent. If they are lucky enough to be able to afford venison, that is good, too; I recommend it to everyone in the House.

The body set up to deal with the issue, the Lead Ammunition Group, is taking the matter seriously. It is not ignoring people’s concerns, but it is putting things into perspective. I am sure that the report that will come out will address the subject. I was given a report by the European Food Safety Authority that clearly shows that although game has a higher lead content—we accept that—it is not seen as a contributory factor to having too much lead in one’s diet. Bread, tea, tap water and potatoes provide a significant amount of lead in the diet and they are all things that we sit down and consume on a Sunday, and eat and drink regularly; they have an impact on us, too.

That is one reason why I believe that although there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction, there is cause for investigation. The Food Standards Agency recently issued advice to high-level consumers of game, and I have already quoted what it said. Perhaps that will put the danger into perspective. I stress that the advice is aimed only at those who eat large amounts of small game—more than 100 or 120 pheasants, partridges or ducks a year—and large game, such as venison, is not included. Even the most fervent game-eater would never consume that much, and even if they did, the rest of their diet keeps things in balance.

Now that the advice has been given, small game is added to a list of many other foods, including oily fish and tuna, that the FSA suggests should not be eaten more than twice a week. It also joins the myriad foods that woman are advised to avoid while pregnant; there is no one present in the Chamber to which that would apply. According to data from the European Food Safety Authority, which provided the bulk of the evidence for the report that I am referring to, eating the suggested daily minimum of five portions of fruit and vegetables and drinking one litre of tap water provides enough dietary lead to exceed the threshold for young children by a factor of two. If a person eats their five a day, and drinks water, they will already be over the limit, before game is added. Other foods, including chocolate and mushrooms, have a very high level of lead; some chocolate has more, weight for weight, than pheasant. The EFSA rates many everyday foods as being among those that contribute most to lead levels in the average diet, and game is not among the ones that Europe is looking at.

Game is enjoyed by many people across the country as a lean and flavoursome alternative to other meats, and I recommend it. I have been consuming game for many years, and I am not aware of any person who suffers health-related issues as a result of consuming game shot with lead ammunition; neither is any shooting body with which I have spoken. In addition, data from the NHS hospital episode statistics show that there is a very low number of lead poisoning cases, compared with cases of poisoning caused by other toxic substances. To put this into perspective, between 1998 and 2011, 19.6 people a year on average were admitted for treatment for the toxic effects of lead. By comparison, 125 people a year on average are admitted for the toxic effect of soap and detergent, 982 for the toxic effect of ethanol, 69 for the toxic effect of ingested mushrooms, and 40 for the toxic effect of snake venom. That puts the issue of lead poisoning and lead’s presence in game into perspective. In the vast majority of cases, those admitted to hospital for treatment for the toxic effect of lead were male and in their late 20s and early 30s, which perhaps suggests that occupational hazards involving lead are the greatest risk factor in UK poisonings.

Investigations must take into account butchery and cookery methods involved in processing any game meat shot with lead ammunition. It is usual for wound channels to be removed when processing meat; I know many butchers who do that. Best practice may mitigate any risk and ensure that levels are consistent with those in conventional meats.

There are serious concerns that alternatives to lead ammunition, especially tungsten, could have serious implications for human health—and environmental health, for that matter, because this is an environmental issue—that have not been thoroughly explored or studied. It is important that the Lead Ammunition Group is given time to complete its study. Such studies must be completed before any widespread move is made to any alternative form of ammunition.

There is a real threat that the most recent leak to the media will subvert the work of the Lead Ammunition Group, which follows a clearly established process and is assessing the issues surrounding lead ammunition. I am hoping to prevent that from happening by showing both sides of the argument. We should rely on the scientific data and research that the group has collated as well as taking on board the views of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and many other bodies. It is clear from correspondence from all bodies that until the Lead Ammunition Group publishes its results and recommendations, the lead shot ban will be actively upheld and even promoted by everyone involved in shooting sports. It is essential that the LAG is given the respect and time that it needs to reach its conclusions, free from pressure from any side, and from media hype, which is extremely unhelpful. I, for one, look forward to receiving the report and until then, despite my own firm belief about the effects of lead shot, I will withhold judgement. I urge everyone to give the LAG the ability to carry out the job that it was created to do and to cease media hype and scares in the meantime.

Country sports are an essential part of our economy. Health and safety, too, are an essential consideration in any decision that is made.

In conclusion, country sports contribute £45 million to the Northern Ireland economy. Some 70,000 primary and secondary jobs across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland depend on sporting shooting. Every year, £2 billion is created in goods and services across the United Kingdom by sporting shooting. Some £6 billion is generated by shooting and country sports in the United Kingdom, including money from people who pay for shooting. We cannot underestimate the incredible contribution that country sports make to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Shooting also provides £250 million a year for conservation: the sport is committed to shooting, but it is also committed to conservation. It is my belief that we can and will find a way forward on the issue, where safety is paramount and country sports can thrive and remain a way of life.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not only on securing this debate on an important subject but on the admirably balanced way in which he presented information to the House. I am glad that he finished by stressing the importance of country sports, particularly shooting, to the economy and the conservation of our landscape. He said that he was a regular shooter, and he is not alone. He is one of 480,000 people who regularly shoot live quarry. I am just glad that I do not appear to be his quarry today: I think his targets are elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress that this is a complex issue—it is not a question of black and white. He is concerned to make sure that health and safety and wildlife issues are paramount, just as he is keen to make sure that the opportunities for sport and relaxation persist both in his part of the country and across the country. There are lots of interrelated interests that we have to balance.

I shall try to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned in particular the recent report by the Food Standards Agency. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) for his intervention, which highlighted the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Let us be clear: lead is not a terribly good food additive. It is a dangerous substance; it is toxic. We do not want people to eat it. I remember something from my own history. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Somerset is known for drinking cider, and a study undertaken many decades ago discovered that the practice of making cider, which is acidic, in vats lined with lead, was probably not the best way to secure the public health of the county of Somerset. Eventually, we stopped using lead lining for the vats—historically, lead had been used for that purpose—and our public health improved as a consequence.

It is important that the Food Standards Agency does its work and highlights any concerns that it may have. People who are very high consumers of game birds, if such people exist, should be aware that they may be exposed to a risk. However, we should stress that people would have to eat an awful lot of pheasant or duck on a daily basis to get near the dangerous level. It is important that we stress that it is not dangerous to consume lead shot game occasionally, which is what most people would do, despite the hon. Gentleman’s exhortations to eat wildfowl more frequently, especially wildfowl that he personally has shot. For most of us, wildfowl is a limited part of our diet.

Reducing lead exposure remains a high priority for the Government. We, like successive Governments, want to reduce exposure to lead wherever possible, for both humans and wildlife. That is why I am keen, as is the hon. Gentleman, to wait for John Swift and his team in the Lead Ammunition Group to report in spring 2013. They have been looking at the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition and the levels of those risks, and they intend to explore possible solutions if those risks prove to be significant. They will also report on the options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition, if measures need to be taken. I am confident that the group will take a balanced and measured view on the basis of evidence. That is why I am looking forward to that report. I think the hon. Gentleman shares that view and is concerned that there may have been early misrepresentations of what is likely to emerge.

The hon. Gentleman titled his debate “The EU directive on lead shot”. May I reassure him that the Government are not aware of any proposals for an EU directive on lead shot? Should one be forthcoming, of course we will look carefully at any proposal to ban lead shot. We will carefully assess whether there is clear evidence of a genuine risk and, if there is, whether any proposal to control the risk is appropriate and proportionate. Again, I will look to the Lead Ammunition Group’s report to inform our position. I repeat that there is no immediate prospect of an EU directive on lead shot. There are various activities within the European Union that are relevant to lead, but not in the form that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. There may be some misunderstanding about that.

[Jim Shannon]

The concerns that we have are about the EU’s attitude to lead in general. As parliamentarians concerned about the impact of Europe, we are worried that the EU may try to introduce regulations on that. We are greatly encouraged to hear the Minister say that that will not happen.

[Mr Heath]

I believe that to be the case. There is a European regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. We know that Sweden has indicated its intention to bring forward by April next year a proposal to restrict the use of lead and lead compounds in consumer products, but that does not include lead shot within its scope. There may be an informal view that Sweden would wish to extend that, but that is not on the table at present. I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, but obviously we will watch carefully and if proposals come forward, we will look at them on their merits in due course.

Let us deal with the real concerns that lead shot may harm our wildlife. We are clear that ingesting lead is probably not good for birds, animals or humans. It is important that we ensure that the right steps are taken to conserve our wild birds, particularly our water bird species. It is not yet entirely clear what risks the use of lead shot might pose for the conservation of our wild birds, but the existing restrictions on its use need to be respected, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.

The research that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in 2010, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, highlighted some concerns about compliance with the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. I entirely accept his point about the provenance of any lead appearing in the ducks, but the fact is that 70% of the ducks examined were found to have been shot with lead, which is a cause for concern. Even advocates of hunting game recognise that any clear evidence of non-compliance is a matter for concern. We will be looking at that carefully, but we will also take into account the points he has make, because it seems to me that some of them are balanced and valid.

I stress again what I think the hon. Gentleman was at pains to say throughout his contribution: what we need is balance. We must weigh up the arguments and the evidence, and not in isolation. We must look at matters in the round. I think that at the heart of the debate there is more that unites the various interests than divides them. We all want to see healthy wildlife, a well-managed countryside, thriving communities and a sustainable rural economy. Therefore, we need to ensure that the evidence is looked at carefully by the experts in the lead ammunition group and that we understand the risks so that we can respond in a measured and sensible way. That is why the Government will not rush to any premature conclusions. We will look at the evidence and will not move to any snap judgements. We will evaluate the results of John Swift’s report and consider the evidence it adduces and its recommendations in due course.

I can give an absolute assurance that we understand the importance of shooting, both in the rural economy and as a form of relaxation that the hon. Gentleman and many other people in the country enjoy—it is not simply an economic matter—so we will balance that with the need to protect our wildlife and ensure that its health is preserved, as is the health of the wider population. We will consider the evidence and base our judgments on what strikes us as the best balance between wildlife conservation, supporting traditional jobs and industries, enhancing sustainable economic group and, of course, doing what is best for our health.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for the points he raised. We will certainly take careful note of the points he raised on behalf of his constituents and of a much wider constituency across the country. This has been a most valuable debate and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the Government’s case.

Question put and agreed to.

Agricultural Wages Board

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I speak on an issue that is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. It is not often, either, that I disagree with my Labour colleagues, and I have spoken to them to make them aware of that.

I wish to make a few comments. I will reflect on the position in Northern Ireland, as that may bring something to the debate that other hon. Members are unable to provide because they do not represent a Northern Ireland constituency.

I hail from a strong agricultural constituency. Agriculture is a major employer, with additional employment coming from processing the food that the land produces. There are some excellent companies that farm the land, produce and package the product, and sell it on to the United Kingdom and Europe. Mash Direct, which employs approximately 100 people, and Willowbrook Foods, which employs 260 people, are just two examples.

The debate is about an issue close to my heart. I have spoken to many farmers in my constituency and it is clear what must be done for the benefit of all. The Agricultural Wages Board is an independent body that sets agricultural wages. It was established after world war two to encourage people to stay and work locally. In the area I represent, we are fortunate that people have done just that for many years. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) illustrated very clearly, agricultural work is hard. Many workers started when they were 16 and are now in their 50s and early 60s. The pains that come from picking vegetables take their toll, but those people enjoy their work. They currently have a good agricultural wage, and I believe that in my constituency they are happy with the process.

The AWB is no longer necessary. As we cry out for Europe to cut red tape and get rid of useless and costly quangos, it is time we started doing so on our own front. The Government have put forward a proposal on which my party is very clear. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, my party led the campaign to abolish the AWB. Michelle O’Neill, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, has deferred to that as that is how the Assembly works. Even though the majority of people can ask for something, the nature of partnership Government means that the Minister has some say about what happens.

A DUP Assembly colleague of mine recently stated that Northern Ireland should follow the proposals at Westminster:

“It is fairly obvious that the AWB is now nothing more than yet another level of unnecessary, expensive bureaucracy. The finances ploughed into the AWB by the Dept would be far better invested in delivering frontline services to farmers. Reducing bureaucracy and freeing up resources and money for real and beneficial change is what is needed especially at a time when farmers are being financially disadvantaged”.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) made that point as well. The situation in my constituency is the same as it is in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom—many farmers are finding it very tight when it comes to trying to make ends meet. As a representative for the rural constituency of Strangford with my ear to the ground, I have a heart for ensuring that farming remains a viable option in Northern Ireland, and I have pursued that as an elected representative over many years as a councillor and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland. Farming is the biggest single employer in my constituency. It must also be highlighted that only 20% of the work force are on the basic rate, which means that the other 80% are in the higher brackets already. Those people are protected by their contracts, and that issue also needs to be taken into consideration.

I drive an eight-year-old jeep that costs as much to keep running as it would cost to buy a new one. If my young son wanted to take it for a spin I would be protective, as we would be for any of our children. That is my nature. I was recently informed that a new tractor costs in the region of £75,000. I would certainly want to ensure that skilled workers were in charge of a tractor, not simply someone on minimum wage. Farmers have assured me that this is their view. It is horses for courses, if I can use that terminology, Mr Caton. Those who have the skills and abilities will do different jobs on the farm. Those who do not have the skills to drive the tractor, or whatever it may be, will do the manual labour, but I agree that they deserve a minimum wage.

Farmers will pay for experience, and taking away the AWB does not mean that wages will drop and people will lose their protection. Farmers must be free to set their wages in a competitive manner and ensure the survival of their farms at a time when many farmers are only able to take the minimum wage themselves. A great many farmers in my area are taking a wage that is equal to that of their agricultural workers, because of necessity and because the banks are on their back. These are hard times for farmers and we have to be very careful about what we do. They farm the land because they love it. The land is the blood in their veins, and it is clear that they will always seek to do their best to get the best from their farms. That will only come through having skilled workers who know what they are doing and who are worth their weight in gold.

I am not alone in agreeing about the abolition of the AWB. In fact, the Ulster Farmers’ Union—hon. Members have spoken about the National Farmers Union; this is the branch in Northern Ireland—has recently questioned the need for the AWB in Northern Ireland, following Michelle O’Neill’s decision to retain its structure in Northern Ireland. That is her decision at this moment in time, to be deferred but also to be looked at again. The UFU is clear in its belief that the AWB is

“an unnecessary and unwanted quango which is costing local tax payers money and is serving”—

with respect—

“no useful purpose.”

That comes from a union whose sole role is to represent farmers and ensure that their voice is heard. I stand as that voice for the UFU. Its spokesperson Robert McCloy, chairman of the employers representatives on the AWB, said:

“We have repeatedly called for the AWB in Northern Ireland to be abolished. The AWB is an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of existing employment laws which are already in place to protect workers. The National Minimum Wage covers the minimum rate of pay, holiday entitlement, sick pay and rest breaks and this, together with the Working Time Directive and a plethora of other employment laws now provide significant protection for employees”.

That is what the people I represent tell me through the UFU and farmers who give their workers good wages. I am aware that the UFU is continuing to lobby for the removal of the AWB in Northern Ireland to save farms throughout the Province and I stand in agreement with them. I understand the fear that workers might have, but I agree with the spokesperson from DEFRA who recently said:

“Agricultural wages laws are more than 60 years out of date, difficult to understand and entirely out of step with modern work practices. Changing them would free numerous small farmers from unnecessary burdens while keeping farm workers, like all other workers across the economy, well protected by national minimum wage legislation.”

To back up that statement, I use the example of those who work on farms, growing the vegetables, potatoes and arable crops and then processing them in factories to sell on. We have many people who come from other parts of Europe to work in the fields and the factories. We have young boys and young girls who leave school at 16 and go straight into this work, which they have been doing for many years. They are protected by the farmers who employ them.

In conclusion, it is unclear to me why farmers should be the only private sector employers who have wage rates set by anything other than the minimum wage structure. It is past time that this ancient body was removed to let farmers pay the wage they determine, as any other business does. I support fully the abolition of the AWB in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, my party has already stated its opinion. I hope that the Department will follow suit. It is not often that I disagree with my colleagues. I look upon them as friends, because we vote together on many things. On this issue, however, I am sorry that I cannot agree with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for securing and introducing the debate. He opened with such an erudite analysis of why the AWB and its functions have been so important over a long period and continue to be important, not least against the backdrop of declining economic activity throughout the country and in rural areas. The issue is indeed to do with the protections afforded not only on pay but on conditions, such as bereavement and all the things mentioned by my hon. Friends. It is also to do with ensuring that we have a good supply of keen, enthusiastic and well-skilled people coming into the industry in future. I shall return to such points because I do not agree with what was said in the written ministerial statement, although we thoroughly welcome it, and I appreciate the courtesy of receiving it before the debate started.

As I looked through the statement, I noted:

“The functions of the Agricultural Wages Committees are now largely redundant”.

I shall return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a good contribution, but the points made by my hon. Friends make it clear that it is far from a settled issue that such functions are redundant. I will go through some of those arguments in detail.

I ask the Government and the new Minister in post, who has this opportunity, to think again about the abolition of the AWB. I ask him to do so because it is not without precedent for this Government to think again. Uniquely, it would be the first time that the Government have thought again in October. In every other month, we have had thinking again and U-turns, so the Minister could make a bit of history today by being the first Minister, although new in post, to think again in the month of October.

DEFRA has done much thinking again on many countryside and coastal issues. We have had U-turns on proposals to destroy buzzards’ nests to protect pheasant shoots, on pasty taxes—thanks to nationwide outrage led by the good people of Cornwall and the south-west—and on the great forestry sell-off of 285,000 hectares of state-owned woodland. We have had a partial U-turn on proposals to close coastguard centres and, unfortunately, a U-turn the wrong way on circus animals, dropping the previous commitment to a ban down to a commitment to new licensing conditions.

I do not want to be exhaustive, but my argument to the Minister is that he could think again because doing so is not unprecedented. We have had tax U-turns on caravans, video games and charitable donations, and other policy U-turns—some welcome, some not—on housing benefit, the mobility parts of the disability living allowance, financial inclusion fund debt advisers, the chief coroner, the military covenant, softer sentencing discounts, strike fighters, Ofsted inspections, school sports, rape anonymity and free school milk. I am dizzy from thinking about the number of U-turns.

In November last year, given opposition to the Government’s proposals, there was a U-turn on the decision to scrap the Youth Justice Board as part of the bonfire of the quangos. Suddenly, that bonfire had one less log on it. I ask the Minister to leave the fire burning brightly without the little log of the AWB as well—it will crackle nicely without it. The Minister can—independently, with independence of mind, new in his ministerial position—make his mark, a welcome mark, by performing one little pirouette of a U-turn on the AWB, a graceful and elegant pirouette. We would applaud his skill and his general loveliness. Other U-turns have been clunky and begrudging. Let the Minister, new to the role, manoeuvre artfully and delicately about-face.

I am not asking the Minister to do something that he does not want to do. In his heart of hearts, he is on the side of farm labourers and smaller farmers, and he has many in his constituency. Does he know how many agricultural workers in his constituency may be affected by the proposals to abolish the AWB? Of course he does. According to Library statistics, there are 1,020. Does he know that that puts him into the elite club of constituencies in the UK with more than 1,000 agricultural workers, many of them low paid and subject to the provisions and protections that we have talked about today? Of course he knows that. The figures are even starker when comparing the number of agricultural workers with the overall population in areas such as the south-west, where there are nearly 23,500 agricultural workers. His constituency might be hit hardest by abolition of the AWB, which may affect 152,000 workers in England and Wales.

I am convinced that the Minister wants a U-turn for his constituents, small farmers and farm workers. Before he attempts that pirouette, I will helpfully warm him up by reminding him why the AWB is so important. This is not, as he may later want to persuade us, just a matter of minimum pay. That would wilfully misconstrue the nature and purpose of the AWB, which is so much more. The Agricultural Wages Board involves

“representatives of farmers and agricultural workers together with independents, negotiating legally enforceable minimum wages and conditions which are significantly superior to those set by the National Minimum Wage and Working Time Regulations”.

The quote continues:

“the Agricultural Wages Board also sets a series of rates of pay to reflect the varying qualifications and experience of farm workers, thus providing a visible career structure for recruits going into agricultural work and is used as a benchmark for other rural employment… average earnings in rural areas are considerably lower than in urban areas… any weakening of the Agricultural Wages Board or its abolition would further impoverish the rural working class, exacerbating social deprivation and the undesirable indicators associated with social exclusion”.

I could not agree more. Those fine words are from early-day motion 892 in 1999-2000, to which the Minister was a signatory. What, I wonder, has changed since then?

During our early and youthful days in Parliament, we all had foolish fancies—we would not be human if we had not—and we would prefer not to be reminded about some of them. However, we also had strong and unwavering beliefs, and I know that the Minister has such beliefs, to which he stays constant. We deviate from such principles at our mortal peril. The Minister should stay true to his course and abide by the pledge he rightly made in that early-day motion. It was not a foolish fancy; it was his principles in writing. He said that the AWB provides a

“visible career structure…a benchmark for other rural employment”

and that abolition would result in “social deprivation” and “social exclusion”.

The Minister was right then, and we are right now, so he should return to the right side of the argument. The AWB streamlines and simplifies decision making for small farmers, so avoiding the time-wasting and complexities of drawn-out negotiations with individual farm workers one by one. Its abolition will increase bureaucracy for small farmers. Furthermore, as was said earlier, some small farmers market their own skills to others in a straightforward way with pay and conditions set and agreed by the AWB. They do not have to hammer out deals at each and every turn. I thought that the Government wanted to make things easier for businesses, especially small businesses, in which case they should keep the AWB.

The Minister may, as his predecessor did, pray in aid the National Farmers Union, for which I, like other hon. Members here, have a great deal of time. It does a sterling job in trying to synthesise a wide variety of views on a wide variety of issues. The manager of a large agri-industrial concern farming 10,000 or 20,000 acres may have slightly different motivations and needs than those of a small upland hill farmer on a couple of hundred acres. I declare an interest because 40% of my constituency is upland hill farmland, and I have family who are upland hill farmers. However, I am not speaking just for them; I am speaking for young farmers.

The Welsh Assembly Government had a cracking debate last week that was supported not just by the Farmers Union of Wales, but by young farmers of Wales who are worried that abolition of the AWB will hamper their access into the industry. Through this debate, I ask the NFU whether it is really saying that none of its farmers, not even tenant farmers, smaller farmers and those who want entry to farming want the AWB to be retained?

I will not go through all the reasons why the AWB is so important. They have been brilliantly articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland, for Islwyn (Chris Evans), and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), and have been made in previous debates by me and others.

I turn briefly to some of the messages from the Low Pay Commission. Its factual observation is that minimum rates will not cover pay for skilled workers. There is no statutory minimum wage for workers under the age of 16, and there is concern about the overtime premium, the night premium and the on-call allowance. It notes that holiday entitlement will be reduced if the AWB is abolished and that sick pay will be significantly less. It also notes that the number of days of bereavement leave will not be specified and that there will be no statutory right for such time off to be paid. Rest breaks will be less favourable for adult workers, and so on. There will be no statutory entitlement to a birth and adoption grant. Piece rates will be lower. At the moment, they are at least the minimum hourly rate of pay applicable to the grade. What is a fair rate, if it is not what is currently being paid under the AWB?

Northern Ireland and Scotland will retain AWBs. The hon. Member for Strangford said that he has his ear to the ground. I say with conviviality and friendliness that the problem of having an ear to the ground means hearing lots of different things. I have my ear to the ground in different places throughout the UK, and farmers have told me that they treasure retention of the AWB and/or its functions. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is not in his place, but he made a valid observation: if not the AWB, what? The Minister should answer that, because the issue is not just the minimum wage aspect, but the protection of a broad range of functions.

I say in all honesty that most farmers are absolutely well-intentioned towards their employees. Most want to do the right thing, and they want skilled people in the industry. They want to ensure good rewards, because they realise that farm labouring is back-breaking work. It has the highest mortality rate of any industrial sector in the UK, and sickness levels are high, so workers need protection. The hon. Member for Strangford says that he has his ear to the ground, but he opposes the position in Northern Ireland, so if not the AWB, what will protect those workers?

[Jim Shannon]

We have heard about having an ear to the ground and hearing many stories, but my responses on this issue have been clear. The AWB is unnecessary and does not provide the support that it should to workers. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that farmers are interested in their workers and want to do the best for them, which they do. I tried to reflect, in my contribution, that that is what the people are saying, and that is what the majority of elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly are saying. Unfortunately, although the majority of people want the AWB removed, under the partnership Government, the Minister can overrule us. That does not reflect the opinion of all those in Northern Ireland, which is the point I am trying to make.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I fully appreciate that point.

In all debates on this matter, I have striven, in my position as a shadow Minister, to speak not only for England, but for other parts of the UK in which what is happening with the AWB is mirrored or contradicted. I want to ask the Minister how negotiations are going with Wales. How are they progressing, or not progressing? The Welsh Assembly Government, the Farmers Union of Wales, the young farmers of Wales, Unite the Union, GMB and others have lined up alongside individual farmers to demand the retention of the AWB’s functions in Wales. To that effect, an excellent debate, which I mentioned earlier, was held last week, spearheaded by Mick Antoniw, the Assembly Member for Pontypridd, who is a brilliant advocate for all workers, including agricultural workers. The only dissenting voice in the whole of that debate was not a Liberal Democrat or a Plaid Cymru Member; it was a Conservative, who had been sent out as a token to speak against the retention of the AWB’s functions in Wales.

department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend and I have both been in the House since 1992 and I vividly remember the Milk Marque being abolished in the early 1990s, which led to a free-for-all that caused some difficulties. Let us put those issues to one side, however, as I am concerned about how we can make progress today.

The Minister has an opportunity to explain to the House how he is progressing on the voluntary code. If a voluntary code does not succeed, he will certainly have my support and that of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I think, for a statutory code in due course. The key issue, however, is how to ensure that those who produce get a fair price for their produce. At the moment, the big businesses mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in his opening remarks, such as Robert Wiseman, can squeeze my constituents to the extent that they cannot make a living out of the production of milk.

Much of the milk produced in my constituency does not go to retail in supermarkets; it goes into the production of butter, yoghurts, cheese and other produce. The code needs to encompass not just supermarkets but all outlets for milk.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel the same concern as many of us about the large investments that farmers have had to make because of the new regulations on slurry and its disposal? That investment, on top of a worse price for milk, makes it more difficult for them to survive.

[Mr Hanson]

The key point is that whatever challenges farmers face in their investment and their businesses, no business can take the type of change that has been imposed now with a 2p cut some months ago followed by a further 2p cut by August. That is being imposed by businesses that are choosing to do so to enable supermarkets to have loss leaders. Customers can have cheaper milk, which must be welcomed in some ways, but ultimately we need a fair deal for all. We need a fair deal for producers, for supermarkets and for those people who buy and transport milk and make it into other products. At the moment, that is not happening because, as the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said, the inflexibility of contracts means that farmers cannot get out of them.

We need an update from the Minister on the review of the contracts and an examination of how we can ensure long-term stability for milk production. We need the voluntary examination of contracting and, if that fails, we need the Government to take regulatory action to ensure that the interests of all parties in this important industry, not just in my area of north Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, are defended.

Finally, will the Minister update us on his discussions with my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales? They have a devolved responsibility for some aspects of dairy production but contracting legislation must be dealt with on a UK-wide basis to ensure that markets are not further distorted between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I support what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wants to see, which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) will no doubt comment on in a moment.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

It is obvious that all hon. Members are keen to support agriculture throughout the UK, particularly produce from their own areas.

As I said, Angus sits in the middle of the Scottish soft fruit-producing area, and today I wish to concentrate on the employment problems faced by soft fruit growers. When I was growing up—it seems a long time ago now—it was commonplace during the school holidays to pick raspberries and strawberries, and to pick potatoes during the “tattie holidays”, as they are known in Scotland. It was a good way to make money to see us through other parts of the year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The humble Comber spud is recognised by and renowned throughout Europe. It is also renowned in Scotland as a superior potato.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong; there is nothing better than Scottish potatoes. Quite rightly, everybody will promote their local produce and it is part of our job to ensure that people know about the delicacies produced in our own areas.

Let me return to my point about soft fruit. Over the years, things have moved on and industry has, I dare say, become more professional and no longer needs to rely on the work of schoolchildren and others. The focus has moved to the employment of more direct seasonal labour, and the spread of cultivation methods such as polytunnels has expanded the types of fruit grown. As well as strawberries and raspberries, we are increasingly growing blueberries in my area. Traditionally they came from Poland, but they are now being grown in Scotland and other parts of the UK. That has led to changes in industry, as have the increasing demands of major supermarkets. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire mentioned the machinery that is now required to meet the huge demands supermarkets impose on industry, which has to produce good quality uniform produce quickly and to the supermarkets’ requirements. Recent trends include increased use of polytunnels for growing soft fruit, rather than open field production.

Horticulture is a vital part of the Scottish economy, particularly in areas such as mine. In total, the horticultural industry—fruit, vegetables and flower production—contributed some £241 million to the Scottish economy in 2010 and, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said, it contributes more than £3 billion to the UK. Most growers in my area rely to a greater or lesser extent on migrant labour, particularly people from Bulgaria and Romania who come to work in the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. It is a huge pity that the issue of young people—principally those from EU accession states—coming to work in the UK agricultural sector has become completely tangled up with the more general issue of immigration. The vast majority of those who come to work in agriculture are in the country for a short, specific period and intend to return to their home nations at the end of their visa period. Unfortunately, as in many other areas, there is often a serious collision between perception and reality.

Under the current scheme, some 21,250 visas were issued last year for workers to come to the UK for periods of between five weeks and six months. Angus Growers, a co-operative that operates 19 farms in Angus and its surrounding areas, tells me that at the peak of the season it employed 2,000 people, the majority of whom were obtained through SAWS. Angus Growers is concerned that the current scheme is guaranteed only until the end of 2013, and it is worried about whether a replacement will be introduced after that. I appreciate that the Minister is in slightly difficult position because although he is responsible for agriculture, SAWS is run by the UK Border Agency, and I assume therefore that the decision on whether the scheme continues will be taken by the Home Office. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear his perspective from an agricultural point of view.

Let me stress that the use of seasonal workers should not be seen as an example of growers looking for a source of cheap labour. SAWS is a detailed scheme and the minimum wage has to be paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It is indeed, but as I will not be present on the Front Bench for the next debate, I will take the opportunity to comment. The GLA has been commented on by other hon. Members.

The action that the GLA takes to tackle worker exploitation in the agricultural, horticultural, shellfish and food processing sectors is second to none. Its success has been acknowledged by everyone in the House and in wider reports, including those by the universities of Liverpool and Sheffield, the Wilberforce Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Minister and I debated the issue in February, and it will shortly be debated again in this Chamber, but at that time we were still awaiting the outcome of the red tape challenge, so we were a little in the dark.

On 24 May, the Government announced the outcome of the challenge and the changes that they intend to make to the GLA. The announcement included news that the GLA has taken a risk-based approach and will no longer regulate low-risk sectors. That includes apprenticeships, forestry, land agents and voluntary workers. Automatic compulsory inspections of businesses when they first apply will be abolished. The licensing period will be extended from 12 months to two years for highly compliant businesses. There will be a move to allow shellfish farm businesses with exclusive rights to use the seashore to use their workers to grade and gather shellfish stock, without needing to be licensed as gangmasters. There will be a substitution of administrative fines and penalties for low-level and technical minor offences, which we debated in some detail during the last such debate. Alternatives to prosecution when taking enforcement action against a labour-user who uses an unlicensed gangmaster will be explored. There will be a focus on the gross abuse of workers by unscrupulous gangmasters who commit multiple offences, such as tax evasion and human trafficking.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to the GLA. I say that in spite of the appalling Beechcroft recommendation to abolish it—an opinion reflected in some of the responses to the recommendation. It was an unacceptable and dangerous proposal, and I am glad that the Government have said that they will not accept that or other recommendations in the report. The Minister will agree that the bottom line must be that the most vulnerable workers in our society are not abandoned. What impact assessment did the Government undertake—I am sure that they undertook one—before announcing the changes? What will be the impact on protecting vulnerable workers? Where are the areas of risk in this risk-based approach?

[Jim Shannon]

We have had some success in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, integrating migrant workers into permanent jobs. Examples include Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct. One employs 260 people and the other just over 100 people—coming from nothing. Perhaps we can use good practice in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, as an example of how we might do things better elsewhere.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman knows the area well, and an advantage of the devolution of administration and powers is that we can, and should, learn lessons about differential applications across the UK. We need to do more within the joint committees that bring the devolved Administrations together and in discussions between Ministers, so that those lessons can be learned. He makes a good point. We should not always try to work from a completely blank sheet of paper, but look at what works well elsewhere.

Will the Minister provide us with the timetable for changes to the GLA? His written statement of 24 May was not clear on the consultation timetable or process. Is he in a position to provide us with that now? Will he confirm that the GLA will have the necessary resources to tackle worker exploitation in the relevant sectors, even under the new approach? We all want the GLA, in its revised form, to be lean, mean and effective, but that requires resourcing, so I seek assurances on that. Will he also provide information on how he intends the GLA to work more collaboratively with other organisations, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency?

I want briefly to talk about the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which I have discussed on several occasions with the Minister and other hon. Members. He knows how strongly I and the Labour party feel on the issue. That strength of feeling is shared by some of the farming unions, such as the Farmers Union of Wales, and by farm workers and the Welsh Government. The AWB protects 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales and has mirror effects on others in the sector. It ensures that people working in the countryside, from apprentices to farm managers, get a fair deal. In its 62-year history, it has provided basic pay and protection for fruit pickers, farm labourers and foresters. That covered wages, but also holidays, sick pay, overtime and bereavement leave.

The Minister will no doubt say—we have had this discussion many times—that many farmers pay well above the agreed wage rates; and I do not disagree. He may also say that there is a national minimum wage—so what is the fuss? However, the AWB does far more than set pay minimums, and when it is gone, the pay and other terms and conditions are threatened. The wages of 42,000 casual workers could drop as soon as those workers finish their next job, once the AWB is gone. It is probable that the wages of the remaining 110,000 will be eroded over time. Ministers have said in the past that farm workers will be protected by the minimum wage, but only 20% cent of farm workers are on grade 1 of the AWB. The rest earn considerably more than the minimum wage. The downward pressure on higher grades in economically difficult times will be high. Children who do summer jobs or part-time jobs currently receive just over £3 per hour, but they are not covered at all by the national minimum wage. They will have no wage protection—unless the Minister wants to correct me on that—when they do holiday work, as has been mentioned, or weekend work, after the board is abolished.

Fish Discards

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable about these issues. I do not know the details stock by stock, but what we want is an end to discards. There were proposals made in the negotiation process that, through de minimis levels that we considered much too high, would in effect have meant that there was not a discard ban. We must be clear about where we want to go, but we want to ensure that we work with fishermen in her constituency and elsewhere to achieve that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. With Diane Dodds, a colleague and Member of the European Parliament, I have been working on this issue for some time and therefore give it a cautious welcome. Does he accept that, in the spirit of the agreement, further effort, known as reductions, in the context of the cod recovery plan for the Irish sea, which affects Northern Ireland fishermen, will not be imposed in future?

[Richard Benyon]

One of the reforms we want as part of the process is a greater movement to multi-annual plans, which I like because they actually take power away from politicians. The horse trading that goes on in December is less possible when we have a good multi-annual plan. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is a bad multi-annual plan, one that was not thought through properly, does not work and in many cases achieves the reverse of what was intended. I will work with him, Diane Dodds and anyone else to ensure that we get the right kind of multi-annual plans system within the reforms.

Dangerous Dogs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tony Baldry]

That is a good point, too. There are a number of issues in any legislation introduced by the Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that will need to be teased out in due course on Second Reading.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Nobody has mentioned the legislation introduced by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which makes provision for elderly people who cannot afford to have their dogs microchipped. Perhaps the Northern Ireland example will be cited by the Minister, who is very knowledgeable on this issue, as a way to bring everybody on board and to not make people feel disadvantaged financially.

[Tony Baldry]

Of course. We will come on to a number of points on Second Reading or in Committee about exemptions and exceptions to compulsory microchipping of the entire dog population.

Universal, compulsory microchipping is not the immediate panacea that it appears to be. There are complexities that need to be teased out during the course of debate on any Bill. I hope that whatever legislation is introduced will be more enduring than the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—I think everyone agrees on that. If we start microchipping puppies, because they are easy to identify and so on, there is nothing to stop local authorities and other organisations, such as the Dogs Trust, encouraging people to microchip their own dogs. Indeed, if strays are taken in, they might be given to owners on the understanding that they undertake to microchip them immediately.

I think the whole House agrees on the need to take action to prevent dogs attacking people on private property, and to stop them attacking guide dogs. I think that everyone agrees on the need for microchipping. However, having gone through all the difficulties of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we need to ensure that we get the next piece of legislation right. That will require us to work hard on the detail of any Bill that is introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries—for the first time, I believe.

It is almost exactly two years since I made my maiden speech to a half-full Chamber—or half-empty, depending on how we look at it—and one of the issues that I highlighted was that of dangerous dogs, largely because as a candidate in the few years running up to the election so many cases had been brought to my attention.

Two years on, we seem to be making some progress, which I am delighted about, but we are not there yet, and I welcome some of the measures that the Government are at last proposing. Top of the list has to be extending protection to private land, with appropriate exemptions if dogs are protecting property from illegal forced entry or whatever. For far too long, many of our hard-working postal workers, delivery staff, carers and health visitors—the list goes on—have not been protected by the law from dog attacks if those occur on private land.

As I pointed out in a previous speech, it is patently ridiculous that at the moment, if a hand puts something through a letterbox and gets bitten by a dog on the other side, that would not attract any prosecution but, if it was the owner of the house who was sitting behind the door and bit the hand, that would. Such a situation seems rather ridiculous, but is at last being remedied, although I understand that we are still awaiting a change in the law to allow such prosecutions to take place. I hope that that will happen soon—it cannot happen too fast, in my view.

I am also pleased that we are consulting on microchipping, and I have listened with interest to some of the remarks about that. We need to find the right balance; there is the issue of pushing for full implementation to further the cause of responsible ownership, but I do not want to see elderly grannies with their 14-year-old poodles being marched down to wherever it is and told that they must get their animals microchipped at that late stage. I hope I am making clear my point about the need for balance.

The most sensible course is to start with young pups that are taken to vets for early health checks. A decent percentage of people already microchip their animals, but there will always be that law-ignoring minority who will simply take no notice. We can get our numbers up, however, by encouraging early microchipping. Local authorities could do something to help by using their tenancy agreements to insist that animals living in council properties are microchipped.

The most difficult problem to tackle, but also one of the most urgent—certainly in my constituency—is irresponsible owners who use their dogs to menace their local community, hanging around in parks or on streets. Police are often reluctant to intervene, unless there is a clear-cut case of an unprovoked attack in which someone is badly injured. Even attacks on other pets do not seem to be a reason for police to interfere.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to make a point salient to the issue of people who hang about in parks with dogs. Another such issue is with gangs who hang about with dogs, and a multiplicity of people with dogs is a real threat—if we see them, right away we are fearful. Do we now have the chance to address that?

[Angie Bray]

That absolutely needs addressing. Often, too, drug dealers use dogs to protect them in their trade. Yes, indeed, we need to look at how we can break such gangs up. In fact, I was about to say that the Home Office is bringing forward some new measures that can help.

First, I like the suggestion of an acceptable behaviour order, which could enable the police or other agencies to require someone whose dog is proving to be a menace to sign up to certain conditions, such as muzzling the dog, having it on a lead or accepting some education from, for instance, the Dogs Trust or the RSPCA about proper dog ownership; if the owners do not fulfil what they sign up to, they are left open to further penalties. We would be getting involved with such people early on, hopefully before serious injuries happened. I like the early intervention possibilities and how owners are put on notice that, if they do not start looking after their dog properly, they could be in trouble.

We are also looking at something called the community trigger, which allows concerned residents to insist that the police or other agencies take action after three complaints. Again, that could involve people who are consistently worried about a gang of people hanging around with a threatening dog in a particular park. There are also criminal behaviour orders, which I understand could be attached to those convicted of certain crimes, including violence, and which could in certain circumstances ban someone unsuitable from being in control of a dog in a public place. That will all help, and the tougher sentencing guidelines are also welcome, although belated.

Finally, I want to flag up something that can make a difference in the medium to long term: local authorities getting much more involved in enforcing housing tenancy agreements, which seek to control pets in council properties. Wandsworth has led the way, and my own local authority of Ealing has also been setting up new agreements, although I am told that those are yet to be properly enforced; I have raised the issue with the council and been reassured that it is being looked at. Obviously, it makes no sense to adopt a new policy if it is not then implemented. I would like to see London councils and the Greater London assembly do much more to push those new housing tenancy agreements, which could make a real difference.

In conclusion, real progress is being made at last, which I welcome, but there is more to do, in particular to ensure that new measures are properly implemented and enforced. We need to remember the dreadful attacks on young children, as well as on many others such as postal workers, that go unreported. There are no guarantees, but we should be minimising the chances.

Littering and Fly-tipping

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate on a subject about which I have always felt strongly. I spoke of my dislike of fly-tipping in my maiden speech on 2 July 2001, and unfortunately, despite more money being spent on clearing up litter and fly-tipping, the problem has got worse and not better.

Although the Government have reduced the deficit by a quarter in the two years they have been in office, they are still spending more than their income, which is why the £863 million spent on street cleansing in 2011 is such a huge sum. If we add the cost of cleaning the highways and railways, and the cost of removing fly-tipping from public and private land, the actual amount of public money spent on cleaning up litter in England is well over £1 billion annually. If people behaved responsibly and cared for their local areas by not littering, that money could be used to care for the needy and the vulnerable in our communities.

My argument is that we need rigorous and robust action from the Government, the police and local authorities, as well as a massive increase in personal responsibility and care for our local environment from an army of concerned citizens. I pay tribute to street cleansing staff up and down our country. They do an important and valued job, and I thank them for it, but they cannot keep our country clean on their own, which is why I wholeheartedly welcome the Daily Mail “Spring Clean for the Queen” campaign and pay tribute to the Campaign to Protect Rural England “Stop the Drop” campaign. I also note that the Country Land and Business Association says that it costs its members an average of £800 per incident to remove non-toxic fly-tipped waste, and several thousand pounds per incident if the waste is hazardous and includes, for example, asbestos.

All of us have a responsibility not to drop litter and to keep our immediate environment clean. We can all keep the area around our homes clean. Shopkeepers can clean in front of their premises, and businesses can keep their immediate environment clean as well. Public servants should also join in. When I go round schools in my constituency, one of the ways in which I judge head teachers is whether they pick up litter as they show me around their school. I have noted that the schools in which the head teachers pick up litter tend to be cleaner. If it is not beneath the head teacher to pick up litter, the other staff tend to get the message fairly quickly.

I also commend the material to combat littering produced by the Campaign to Protect Rural England for use in our schools. This work is really important. If children are not learning at home that littering is wrong, they need to be told this very clearly in schools. I was delighted to read recently that Mrs Patricia Prosser, in the village of Stanbridge in my constituency, has just been nominated as villager of the year for the regular litter-picking that she undertakes in her village. She does not have to do it, it is not her job specifically, and she is not paid to do it, but she does it because she cares about her village and her environment. All of us could well follow her example, whether we live in a town, village or city.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue before the House tonight. Does he think that increased penalties for those who drop litter and fly-tip are the way forward? In Northern Ireland, council officials have the authority to issue fines on the spot to those whom they observe littering. Is that the way forward, rather than letting people get away with it?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope that he will have been pleased, as I was, by the announcement made by the Government today that they will make it a criminal offence regularly to dump rubbish in gardens and that those who are guilty of “persistent unreasonable behaviour” and who have ignored warnings to clear away unsightly rubbish will be subject to on-the-spot fines of £100—which is higher than some of the current penalties—or a court-imposed fine of up to £2,500. All of us know how it ruins a neighbourhood to have sofas, mattresses or fridges lying around in gardens, making an area look a complete mess. It is not fair on the decent householders who have to live in proximity to such situations. I urge the Government to bring in these community protection notices as quickly as possible as they are very much needed.

Much of the litter in the UK is thrown from vehicles and I was very interested to see that some London local authorities now have the power to impose a £100 fine on the registered owner of vehicles whose occupants throw litter from those vehicles and that this has become a civil offence. Can this scheme be spread across the whole of the United Kingdom?

I understand that local authorities across the UK and not just in London can now introduce similar byelaws into their areas. Can the Minister explain how local authorities can go about this? A poll released by the AA yesterday of 8,800 of its members showed that 61% think that people caught throwing litter from cars should be punished with three points on their licence, a fixed-penalty fine and possibly a community service order. There seems to be a public appetite for taking more robust action on this issue, and when the newsreader, Alice Arnold, recently threw a plastic bottle back into the car in front of her whose occupants had just chucked it on to the road, she was rightly widely praised for her actions.

I wonder whether we could make it possible for fly-tipped waste to be taken to tidy tips for no charge. We need to make it easy for landowners, both public and private, to clear up fly-tipped waste—after all, it is not their fault it is there—and not disincentivise them from doing so. It might be helpful if the local authority certified that the waste had been fly-tipped.

I also wonder whether it is possible to increase the fines for littering. I understand that in Los Angeles the fine for dropping litter is $1,000 and that it is vigorously enforced by the police. People do not tend to drop litter in that city, and unsurprisingly it is much cleaner than many British cities as a result. Do the Government plan to increase fines? Does the Minister believe that more police officers should be involved in enforcing the penalties? I understand that, at present, the issuing of fixed penalty notices is mainly done by local authority officers and police community support officers. Does the Minister think that there is scope for all police officers to join the front line of the fight against the litter louts?

We need to take every opportunity to tell the public that littering is offensive and wrong, and will be punished. I am pleased, therefore, that the Highways Agency is trialling anti-littering signs on its electronic gantries across motorways in three areas. I would like this initiative rolled out across the whole UK.

In many European countries, plastic bags are simply not offered at supermarkets. Customers can either buy a permanent bag for a few euros or are given a brown paper bag. Unsurprisingly, those countries have many fewer plastic bags littering the countryside. Plastic bags do not biodegrade easily and consequently remain as litter for very long periods. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s plans to vastly reduce the number of single-use plastic bags being used in the UK?

Some other countries also have deposit refund schemes. Do the Government believe that such schemes could be introduced in the UK? I understand that the CPRE has done some research in this area and believes that such schemes would make a difference and could be introduced at no cost to the Government. What assessment have they made, then, of how successful these schemes are in other countries?

All Members care for our country and want to make it a better place. We all have a role, therefore, in trying to make Britain a country in which there is less litter. The amount of litter throughout our country is symptomatic of how people view their country and their local community. If someone litters, it means they do not care about their immediate environment or the impact their actions have on others. Litter is about personal responsibility and whether we, as citizens, care about the country we live in. As we approach a moment of great pride in our country’s history, celebrating the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen, I hope that we can all—those in authority and individual citizens—play our part in making this country one that has far less litter and fly-tipping in it.