Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I thank the hon. Lady for her serious question and would like her to rest assured that these matters are being considered very carefully within Government. The immediate priority is to take bold and novel action to right, in so far as we can, the wrongs that have come about through the Horizon scandal, but a slower-timed but nevertheless urgent piece of work is to make sure that private prosecutions are sufficiently scrutinised and inspected in future.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the leaking of Law Officer advice for political or any other purposes is not only a breach of the very important Law Officers’ convention respecting the confidentiality of legal advice, but damaging to the public interest and contrary to the rule of law?

[The Attorney General]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a characteristically significant intervention. Having served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General, he will know very well the importance of the Law Officers’ convention to the working of Government. Legal professional privilege generally is a very important construct and something on which the client relationship relies. In Government it is, if anything, even more significant, and when Law Officers’ advice is leaked it has a chilling effect on our ability to provide free, frank and honest advice to the rest of Government. That is something I wholeheartedly deplore, and I agree with everything my right hon. and learned Friend said.

National Pollinator Strategy

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about the evidence base, and that is a key part of the draft national pollinator strategy. I will come on to the importance of ensuring that we are very much an evidence-based policy-making body.

There is a mounting evidence base to show that a huge range of threats is leading to overall declines in the number of pollinators, but with no single factor accounting for those losses. There are numerous factors involved, with habitat loss and intensification of land use probably at the top of the list. Pests, disease, the use of agri-chemicals, invasive species and changes to the weather are all factors as well. Those factors affect different species, wild and managed, to different degrees and in different ways. According to the excellent Library briefing prepared for this debate, there is evidence that the losses in wild pollinator and wild insect-pollinated plant diversity might be slowing. But the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has produced a useful note that provides more detail for Members and for members of the public who are following this debate.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. Does she agree that bees and our other pollinators are an absolutely essential prerequisite for biodiversity and our eco-system? They are important in many and varied ways, especially with regard to food prices. If we have problems with our pollinators for whatever reason—there are myriad different reasons—it will eventually affect food prices.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point because a great many of our crops rely on pollination. In some countries, especially America, where pollinators have been wiped out from whole sectors of agriculture, more expensive hand pollination is being introduced. Only last week I saw that UK universities are undertaking research to invent mechanical replicas of bees. Such is the threat to bees, which are the most effective of our pollinators, that we are having to invest in finding ways of replacing them. Although I welcome such research and innovation, it is far more important that we do everything we can to protect and enhance the wonderful natural resource that we have in our pollinators.

There is clearly a groundswell of concern from a wide range of people and organisations throughout the UK, including beekeepers, scientists, the women’s institute and Friends of the Earth, as well as children and families, thanks to Disney’s “Bee Movie”, and the work of the broadcasters Bill Turnbull and Martha Kearney. That culminated in a bee summit organised by Friends of the Earth in June 2013.

Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published its report “Bees and other pollinators: their value and health in England” in which it outlined its plans for an urgent review of policy and evidence to inform the development of a national pollinator strategy. To inform the strategy’s development, DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, established the independent pollinators expert advisory group, chaired by Professor Charles Godfray, to review published evidence on the status of pollinators and pollination services, to identify gaps in research and to give advice on the development and design of experiments at the landscape scale. The group’s work was published in March, along with the draft national pollinator strategy.

What I like about the draft national pollinator strategy is that it is just that—an ambitious and joined-up strategy. It recognises that the challenge we face requires not only Government action, but action from everyone. Following widespread stakeholder involvement, it takes a comprehensive approach to providing a national framework for local action by all people and organisations that can make a positive difference, from people at home to planners and land managers.

I welcome the three focused areas of the strategy, the first of which is evidence gathering on pollinator status and the impacts of environmental pressures. In national biology week, it is good that Parliament is putting science at the heart of the development of an important national strategy. The strategy also proposes “12 evidence actions” to provide a sound base for future policies to support pollinators, including by developing a sustainable monitoring programme for pollinators. DEFRA has already commissioned a two-year research project to develop and test a programme to monitor pollinators.

Secondly, the strategy proposes “18 priority actions” for the Government and others to implement from 2014, which reflect current evidence and in some cases build on and expand existing initiatives to refocus on the essential needs of pollinators. Those actions cover the management of farmland, towns, cities and public land, pest and disease risks, engaging the public, sharing knowledge, and improving the understanding of the status of pollinators and the services that they provide.

The strategy’s third aspect is a commitment to its review in 2019. It is proposed that as additional evidence becomes available the strategy should be reviewed and updated. From 2016, there will be new evidence from the monitoring programme and other evidence projects, as well as experience from implementing the strategy itself.

I support the emphasis on promoting local joined-up working. Last week, I chaired the first Cornwall bee summit, sponsored and enabled by Tregothnan, which has a deep commitment to honey bees and their health. The summit was a great opportunity for people who are already making such a positive difference to share their experience and identify what more needs to be done in Cornwall: from members of the WI to parish councillors; from landowners and the National Farmers Union to beekeepers at Tregothnan and throughout Cornwall; and from leading academic Juliet Osborne, who is from Exeter university and based in my constituency, Richard Soffe of Duchy college and Cornwall council’s ecologist, Natasha Collings, to representatives of organisations that work day and night to help our pollinators, including the Gaia Trust and the B4 project, and larger groups such as Friends of the Earth and Buglife. If people are interested, they can watch a summary of the bee summit online.

Mango Import Ban

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

There are many salad crop growers in urban Reading, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would be keen to protect them. I can assure him that, as I will say in my speech, this has already been done.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he think this is another example of European Union bureaucracy and regulation going too far?

[Keith Vaz]

Yes.

Leicester is the mango capital of Britain. Last year it hosted the first-ever mango festival in Cossington park in Belgrave in my constituency: four giant elephants dominated the scene and many hundreds of boxes of mangos were consumed. Retailers in Leicester have told me that they will face critical losses as a result of this decision and the situation will be repeated in other cities and towns in Britain, such as Manchester, Birmingham, and Southall, Tower Hamlets and Feltham in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to undertake to respond to the right hon. Gentleman in writing on that specific point. The issue is not just what steps the Indian Government have been taking to deal with matters at source; it is also whether the trend in interceptions was declining or increasing. In April this year there were seven interceptions, two of which were of mangos. There were eight instances of missing or incomplete phytosanitary certificates, which is highly significant if we are to have confidence in the system, as I know the right hon. Gentleman would want, and there were 11 instances of wood packing material not complying with requirements. The right hon. Gentleman’s contention earlier was that the Government in India have a handle on this issue and therefore we are seeing a steep decline. That is not the experience immediately prior to the decision being taken, and that is what informed the vote. It is that evidence that was used at that point.

[Michael Ellis]

Is it right that Brussels bureaucrats made the decision, or were Ministers of the Crown seized of the matter?

[Dan Rogerson]

Representatives of all member Governments of the European Union would have input into that decision, and the UK Government strongly supported tight security in this area, for the reasons that I established a short time ago.

Despite that conclusion, the Indian authorities’ recognition of the problems and their undertaking to address them, the number of pests found in produce imports continued to rise during 2013. There have been 20 interceptions of pests in Indian produce coming into the UK in 2014 alone. When the situation was explained to the EU Plant Health Standing Committee, which is chaired by the European Commission and attended by all member states, there appeared little option, if further introductions of pests were to be prevented, but to send a strong signal by banning the import of the products presenting the greatest risk.

India is not being singled out. The Commission has taken similar action in the past, for example in respect of potatoes from Egypt and, more recently, citrus from South Africa—a significant crop in that country’s exports. Other countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, have introduced voluntary export bans when confronted with the possibility of an EU ban. That approach has been successful, because the number of pests found from those countries has been much lower after trade has opened up again.

Ash Dieback Disease

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Let me be clear: we are not going to blame anyone for bringing in a tree. The only person engaged in a blame game is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench; the rest of us are trying to find practical solutions. I have no intention of scapegoating somebody who has innocently brought a diseased tree into the country. We will ensure that advice is available through the Forestry Commission, and use every resource, including the press, so that people know the signs they should be looking for in mature ash trees. Meanwhile, it will be for experts to identify the existence of the pathogen in ash trees and to take appropriate steps. Nobody should feel worried that because they have planted an ash sapling, they will be held personally responsible for the outbreak of Chalara.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

While the Labour party has been making cheap political points, a consultation has been in progress. What can the Minister tell the House about how effectively that consultation supported a prohibition?

[Mr Heath]

The consultation was about a statutory ban and the responses we received were overwhelmingly supportive of that. In fact, they also provided some further helpful advice about the implementation of the ban, which enabled us to achieve that at the very first opportunity.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I welcome the fact that there are groups such as the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which works to maintain historic breeds and to promote organic farming. There is nothing wrong with that, and I appreciate the fact that it supports the Bill’s aims. However, my hon. Friend will agree that it represents a relatively small part of the farming community.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware—I am from Northampton North, by the way—that the National Farmers Union, which could be said to have the best knowledge about what is in the farming community’s best interests, does not appreciate the Bill? Although it believes that its intentions are admirable, it believes that it would make bad law and could lead to serious harm to the UK livestock sector.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right. The NFU has stated that it supports the aims of the Bill, which it thinks is “admirable in intent”, but does not take into account the work that has already been done—a point that I shall make later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way.

On the subject of legislation and the volume thereof, is it not right to say that Governments have proved very capable, especially in the last several years, of analysing and assessing the challenges of a more sustainable farming sector without the need for legislation? For example, is my hon. Friend aware that no fewer than 11—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Michael Ellis]

Forgive me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should face the Chair when he is speaking. Interventions should be short.

[Michael Ellis]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been 11 reports or initiatives on food, climate change and the environment in the past nine years, and all have been instigated and conducted without the need for legislation.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. It is worth noting that the Labour party had 13 years in government to legislate in the manner that the Bill suggests. It chose not to do so. As my hon. Friend says, there were a number of initiatives to try to meet the Bill’s objectives.

It seems reasonable to assume that the only way in which the Secretary of State can ever hope to comply with all her duties would be to impose new rules on food manufacturers and packagers. In fact, clause 1(4) places on the Secretary of State

“a duty to ensure that the steps taken in accordance with this Act do not lead to an increase in the proportion of meat consumed in the United Kingdom which is imported.”

I see why such a provision is considered necessary; subsection (4) gives the game away. It is clear from it that those promoting the Bill fully realise that its effect will be to increase the burden of regulation and red tape on Britain’s farmers. In turn, the cost of British meat will increase and inevitably lead to an increase in imports. In what I submit would be a futile attempt to stop that happening, the Bill attempts to legislate to prevent market forces from working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. We should be concerned about standards of meat production in other parts of the world. It would be nice to think that we could eventually bring farmers in all countries in the world up to the quality and animal welfare standards that we enjoy in this country. I submit, however, that there are ways of doing that other than through the Bill. There is no reason, for example, why the persuasion at international level could not take place without any legislation being passed. I am sure—no doubt the Minister will confirm this—that that will already take place, regardless of any extra legislation.

Clause 1(4) gives the game away. If, by some remarkable mix of policy initiative, the aims of clause 1 were somehow to be achieved, the net result would mean nothing less than a massive reduction in the level of meat consumption in the United Kingdom. Right hon. and hon. Members must be in no doubt that this Bill will have the effect of forcing millions of Britons into becoming not just vegetarians, but vegans. I should stress that I have nothing against anyone who chooses not to eat meat; I myself often choose to eat meals without any meat in them. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I have to—I cannot afford to pay for it. However, I submit that that it is not the role of Government to dictate what people eat.

I must make it clear that I fully support all the farmers engaged in organic farming, and I entirely agree that traditional methods of farming are to be applauded and encouraged, but that is not an appropriate matter for this House to legislate on. It is much better that farmers be encouraged to adopt more organic and, as the Bill says, sustainable methods of farming as a result of public pressure and genuine market forces than to try to force them down this route with yet another mountain of red tape.

Let me return to the specifics of the Bill. Not content with imposing a duty and setting out six separate policy areas to which the Secretary of State must give consideration, the Bill also contains, in clause 1(5), a long list of topics on which the Secretary of State must find experts and then consult them. The Secretary of State must

“consult…organisations and persons”

who

“have expertise on—

(a) livestock farming, relevant technologies and the production and processing of livestock produce,

(b) the production of feed and chemicals used in livestock farming,

(c) food retailing, the food service sector and the relevant supply chains,

(d) the environmental impacts of the livestock industry, particularly those relating to climate change and biodiversity,

(e) the health impacts of livestock farming and the consumption of livestock produce,

(f) consumer attitudes and behaviour,

(g) animal health and welfare,

(h) minimising and disposing of food waste”,

and finally, although it is rather difficult to imagine what other areas could possibly be added to such a wide list,

“(i) any other subject considered relevant by the Secretary of State.”

It is clear that the matters to be considered wander far away from the simple title of the Bill, “Sustainable Livestock”. I particularly note that although the Secretary of State is required to consult persons or organisations who are experts in the effect on our health of eating livestock and livestock products, the term “health impacts” does not appear in the definition of what constitutes a relevant factor in determining

“the sustainability of the livestock industry”

as referred to in clause 3. The Secretary of State is therefore required to consult people on matters about which the Bill itself submits it has nothing to do with.

As right hon. and hon. Members may be aware, the Bill appears to be supported by a dazzling and wide-ranging array of bodies, such as Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I declare an interest, as I am a member of that august charity.

[Michael Ellis]

Who would pay for all these experts, and how much would they be paid?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I shall raise shortly, because the Bill is silent on that.

The list of bodies that support the Bill also includes the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Campaign for Real Farming, Compassion in World Farming, War on Want, the World Wildlife Fund, the Grasslands Trust, and even the Guild of Food Writers, to name but a few.

One may well ask why the Bill attracts such wide support. The reason, I submit, is that they all intend to use it to achieve their own particular campaigning ends. The Bill might, on the face of it, appear to be simply about sustaining livestock, but all those diverse organisations see it as a means of forcing Government to carry out the policies that they would wish to see implemented. The House will have noted that unusually for a Bill, it does not contain any specific policies. It does, I accept, set out what might be called a policy aspiration, but there are no specifics as to what Government are expected to do. We can only speculate on what such policies might entail. Indeed, some may venture that the reason specific policies are not contained in the Bill is that they would be so unpopular that they would engender yet more opposition to it.

One clue is contained in the postcard campaign organised by Friends of the Earth which is headed “Join the Moovement”, with the strapline,

“Put your hoof down for planet-friendly farming”.

The covering letter sent to Members with the postcard states:

“The Bill calls on Government to produce a strategy that assesses the impacts the livestock sector has on the environment, sets out the policy changes needed to reduce them, ensures problems are not simply moved overseas, and supports a sustainable and thriving UK farming industry.”

Having read the Bill, I cannot see where the word “strategy” appears at all, and nowhere are any policy changes set out. I am not sure whether the promoter and sponsors of the Bill had considered the coalition Government’s “Programme for Government” document, but if they had, they would have found a series of policies—real policies—that seem to cover many of the areas of concern mentioned in the Bill. For example, on page 17 there is a commitment to introduce measures to protect wildlife, halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity. There is a commitment to working towards a “zero waste economy”, and on page 18 there is a commitment to promote high standards of farm animal welfare.

I submit that the reason none of these policies is sufficient is that the promoter and many of the supporters of the Bill would like to see the United Kingdom go much further. I entirely accept that these interest groups represent areas of concern for many people, but I wonder whether it is appropriate for what is, by any assessment, a minority of people to use this Bill as a Trojan horse eventually to force others to accept the diet that they themselves have chosen to adopt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I must admit I had not noted. It is indeed remarkable that the Bill refers at a number of points to the United Kingdom as the area that the Secretary of State must consider. Clause 1(4) refers to the

“meat consumed in the United Kingdom”.

Clause 3(b) refers to the need to

“prevent biodiversity loss in the United Kingdom”.

Clause 3(a) refers to the need to

“address climate change in the United Kingdom”.

If one is to believe clause 5, all of that would be outside the scope of the Bill to a large extent. There is a clearly a problem, and I would be interested to hear how the Bill’s promoter expects it to be dealt with.

In conclusion, I submit that the Bill is at best premature.

[Michael Ellis]

I presume that my hon. Friend is moving to the concluding parts of the first stage of his address, but before he does, will he deal with one point? My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is not in his place, but could the geographical issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has just raised possibly apply to overseas territories, given the lack of a clear definition in the Bill? That could create further confusion. Is it not also appropriate at this juncture to point out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One point is enough, and I am sure Gibraltar will not be affected.