CAP Reform in England
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Today, I am publishing the consultation on the implementation of common agriculture policy (CAP) reform in England. I am seeking views on various issues relating to:
direct payments to farmers;
greening of direct payments;
the rate of transfer between the budgets for direct payments (pillar 1) and rural development programme (pillar 2);
the focus of the rural development programme; and
other associated issues.
As part of the consultation, I have also published an impact assessment for the rural development programme, an evidence paper for CAP reform covering direct payments and greening. These are supported by a scoping report on a strategic environmental assessment for rural development in England.
The CAP settlement for the next period will deliver very significant sums of money to English farmers and other CAP recipients. We need to make sure that this money is spent in the most appropriate way. The rural development programme is a major opportunity to invest over seven years in the environment, farming competitiveness and the rural economy and we need to make sure we invest resources wisely and get value for money. The consultation document seeks views on potential options for implementing CAP reform in England. It also outlines the decisions we have already taken.
These documents build on the informal consultation that has taken place over the summer with the farming industry, environmental interest groups and other interested parties. We are seeking as wide a range of views as possible to ensure that we take robust decisions on CAP implementation in England that continue to grow the rural economy and improve the environment.
The consultation runs until 28 November.
European Environment Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I represented the UK at the European Environment Council meeting in Luxembourg on 14 October. Paul Wheelhouse, Scottish Government Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also attended.
After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislative “A” items, Environment Ministers had an exchange of views on the proposal to amend the shipments of waste regulation. The Commission emphasised the potentially severe environmental impact of the dumping or mismanagement of waste. The strengthening of inspections could bring economic benefits for member states. All member states welcomed the potential of the proposals to improve compliance with the waste shipments regulation. The UK and Bulgaria argued that further consideration was required as the proposal risked failing to achieve its objectives. Several member states agreed with the UK’s concern that requiring the publication of detailed inspection plans could be counterproductive. The UK argued that such detailed proposals were contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. The UK would prefer an obligation on member states and their authorities to plan effectively for inspections, without being overly prescriptive. A number of member states, including Germany, supported the UK.
Council conclusions were adopted on the preparations for the 19th session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (the “Warsaw COP”). The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and ministerial colleagues focused their discussions on paragraphs relating to pre-2020 mitigation ambition and the process towards the new 2015 global agreement, including the UN Secretary General’s announcement to host a leaders’ summit in 2014.
There was a great deal of discussion on the importance of a timetable for the proposal of commitments for the new 2015 global agreement. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, supported by many colleagues, emphasised that the aim was to ensure countries left the Warsaw COP knowing they had to do their “homework” on commitments in 2014. This was consistent with the EU’s previous public statements proposing a stepwise approach to the 2015 agreement. Mr Davey also pressed firmly for ministerial engagement on pre-2020 mitigation ambition at the Warsaw COP. Conclusions meeting UK objectives in these areas were adopted. Ministers then broke for a working lunch, during which green infrastructure was discussed.
In the afternoon session the presidency introduced the agenda item on carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger cars, inviting interventions from any member states who could not agree with or had misgivings about the text negotiated in June under the Irish presidency. The German Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Peter Altmaier, explained he was committed to reaching a first reading agreement on the basis of the previous trilogue discussions that accepted the target of 95g/km for 2020, but that allowed some further limited flexibility.
Several member states supported the request for further consideration, and others offered support for finding a compromise. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change supported the request for further consideration in the light of these concerns, and the suggestion that the presidency and Commission develop further proposals that would generate greater consensus. He none the less noted that the compromise package on the table was a good compromise and we should only be looking to minor amendments. The presidency concluded that it would talk to the Commission, keeping in mind that a resolution was needed as soon as possible, and that it would keep member states informed of developments.
In other business, the presidency updated the Council on recent international meetings and events. There were five events of note, namely: the 11th conference of parties to the convention to combat desertification; the 20th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development; the first meeting of the high-level political forum on sustainable development; the special event towards achieving the millennium development goals; and the diplomatic conference for the Minamata convention on mercury. There were no interventions from member states. The Hungarian Minister updated the group on the Budapest water summit that had taken place on 8-11 October. The Commission congratulated Hungary for this timely event, as did Sweden.
Updates were also provided on the 38th International Civil Aviation Organisation assembly outcome on climate; the system for monitoring, reporting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport; and facilitating a global hydrofluorocarbon phase-down agreement under the Montreal protocol. Under other business, Denmark also reintroduced the political declaration concerning the use of industrial gas credits under the effort sharing decision which it had released in 2011. This was welcomed by a number of member states including the UK.
Dog Attacks (Maximum Penalties)
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
My Department consulted this summer in England, and in Wales on behalf of the Welsh Government, on possible increases to the maximum penalties for aggravated offences under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. These relate to a dog being dangerously out of control and a dog killing or injuring a person or an assistance dog.
We undertook a short, online survey of people’s views on options for an increase in maximum penalties which currently stand at two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for aggravated offences.
A total of 3,180 people and organisations completed the online survey and a number of organisations sent written representations. In summary, some 91% of respondents considered that maximum penalties should be increased. 83% thought there should be an increase for injury to an assistance dog or a person, 69% for the death of an assistance dog, and 76% for the death of a person.
In coming to a decision on new maximum penalties for dog attacks, we have taken into account the responses to the consultation and the need for maximum penalties to be proportionate to the offence. We have also compared the current maximum penalty with the maximum penalties for other offences. The maximum penalty of causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years’ imprisonment and the maximum penalty for causing actual bodily harm is 5 years’ imprisonment. Anyone who deliberately sets their dog on a person and kills them—in effect using their dog as a weapon—could be charged with murder or manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The Government propose, therefore, to increase the maximum penalties for aggravated offences under section 3 of the 1991 Act in England and Wales to:
14 years’ imprisonment if a person dies as a result of a dog attack
5 years’ imprisonment if a person is injured by a dog attack, and
3 years’ imprisonment if an assistance dog either dies or is injured by a dog attack.
The increase in maximum penalty for a dog attack on an assistance dog, such as a guide dog for the blind, reflects the devastating effect such an attack has on the assisted person. As now, each of these offences could also be punishable by an unlimited fine instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment. An amendment to the 1991 Act to effect these changes will be tabled for consideration during Lords Committee Stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
Responsible dog ownership
Increasing the maximum penalties for dog attacks is only one aspect of the Government’s overall approach to tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Government consulted on a range of possible measures to encourage responsible dog ownership in 2012 and published a summary of results and the way forward on 6 February 2013.
As a result of that consultation, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill—clauses 98 and 99—includes amendments extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private property and provisions that extend the offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control to all places, including people’s homes. This will give protection to family members, friends and visitors including postal workers, nurses, utility workers and other professionals who visit homes as part of their job. At the same time, there will be an exemption from prosecution for householders whose dogs attack trespassers in or entering the home. There will also be a specific offence of allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog.
In addition, the Bill includes new measures for local authorities and the police to take action before a dog attack occurs. These measures can require dog owners to take any reasonable steps to address their own or their dog’s behaviour, including, but not limited to: attending dog training classes, requiring the dog to be on a lead in public, repairing fencing to their property to prevent the dog escaping, and even requiring the dog to be neutered. These measures supplement the non-statutory tools such as acceptable behaviour contracts that are already used by many local authorities to address antisocial behaviour including that involving dogs.
A comprehensive practitioner’s manual has been drafted in liaison with the Welsh Government, police and local authorities to ensure that these new measures tackle irresponsible dog ownership without compromising dog welfare.
The UK Government and Welsh Government have both announced measures to require the microchipping of all dogs by April 2016 in England and by March 2015 in Wales. This will allow lost and stray dogs to be reunited quickly with their owners, minimising stress for both dog and owner, and saving considerable time and resource for hard-pressed local authority dog wardens and animal welfare charities. Separate regulations on dog microchipping will be published in 2014.
Way forward
Parliament will consider the Government proposals for increased maximum penalties for dog attacks and, if agreed, they should come into force in 2014 following Royal Assent of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 17 October in Luxembourg. Richard Lochhead MSP also attended.
The Council reached an agreement on fishing opportunities in the Baltic region for 2014. The Commission praised the Baltic member states as both providing a good example of regionalisation and sustainable management of stocks, in line with the spirit of the reformed common fisheries policy.
There was an exchange of views on the European Union-Norway annual fisheries agreement. This agreement is of vital importance to the UK fleet and the UK Government pressed for a 2014 North sea cod total allowable catch (TAC) which was in line with the science, maintaining current effort levels (the number of days fishermen are allowed to spend at sea) and for developing and expanding our discard-free catch quota schemes in the North sea.
In an exchange of views on the EU’s priorities for the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) next month, the UK supported continued protection of bluefin tuna stocks and argued for increasing the protection of vulnerable shark species. The Commission agreed with the UK point that, ICCAT was improving its performance and that this was finally bringing results. They promised to redouble their efforts to protect vulnerable sharks and to secure a ban on shark finning.
Under AOB Ireland raised the north-east Atlantic mackerel management and coastal state negotiations. The UK argued that new scientific advice could provide an opportunity to achieve a breakthrough in the long-running dispute with Iceland. However, a deal should not be at any cost, should not contain new access concessions and Norway must be a full and equal partner in any agreement. There was widespread support for the Commissioner’s approach of moving towards a fair and equitable solution that must involve Norway.
Balance of Competences (Review)
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I wish to inform the House that, further to the Foreign Secretary’s oral statement launching the review of the balance of competences on 12 July 2012 and the written ministerial statements on the progress of the review on 23 October 2012 and 14 May 2013, I have today published the calls for evidence for the agriculture and fisheries reports. The agriculture and fisheries reports will be completed by summer 2014.
The agriculture report will consider the European Union common agricultural policy, plant health, plant reproductive materials and international trade in agricultural commodities.
The fisheries report will focus on the European Union common fisheries policy, and competence for the management of fisheries and aquaculture. Competence issues relating to the wider marine environment, beyond fisheries management, are considered under the environment and climate change report.
The call for evidence period will last 12 weeks. DEFRA will draw together the evidence and analysis into first drafts which will subsequently go through processes of scrutiny before publication in summer 2014.
DEFRA will take a rigorous approach to the collection and analysis of evidence. The calls for evidence set out the scope of the reports and include a series of broad questions on which contributors are asked to focus. Interested parties are invited to provide evidence with regard to political, economic, social and technological factors. The evidence received (subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act) will be published alongside the final report in summer 2014 and will be available on the Government website: www.gov.uk.
DEFRA will consult widely across Parliament and its Committees, businesses, the devolved Administrations and civil society in order to obtain evidence to contribute to our analysis of the issues. Our EU partners and the EU institutions will also be invited to contribute evidence to the review. As the review is to be objective and evidence-based, encouraging a wide range of interested parties to contribute will ensure a high yield of valuable information.
The resulting reports are intended to be comprehensive, thorough and detailed analyses of the functioning of EU competence in the areas of agriculture and fisheries and what this means for the UK national interest. They will aid our understanding of the nature of our EU membership and they will provide a constructive and serious contribution to the wider European debate about modernising, reforming and improving the EU. The reports will not produce specific policy recommendations.
I am arranging for the calls for evidence to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also be accessible through the balance of competences review pages on the Government’s website at: www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences.
Agricultural and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Thursday 17 October in Luxembourg. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will be representing the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP may also attend.
The Council will concentrate on fisheries items. There are no agricultural items scheduled for this Council.
The agenda items are as follows:
Council regulation fixing the 2014 fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic sea
EU /Norway: annual consultation for 2014
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) annual meeting— exchange of views
AOB item: north-east Atlantic mackerel management and coastal state negotiations
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
This Government are committed to ensuring we have a comprehensive package of measures to tackle bovine TB (bTB), including a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high incidence of TB in cattle.
I am updating the House following the completion of the six-week control pilot in Gloucestershire on 15 October. This is further to my statement of 9 October, in which I informed the House that Natural England was considering, and has since granted, a short extension to the pilot in Somerset to improve the disease benefits already achieved.
As previously announced, the badger population in Gloucestershire immediately before the pilot began was estimated to have fallen to 2,350 compared with an estimated population of 3,400 last summer. In the six weeks of the pilot 708 badgers have been removed from this population. This represents just over 30% of the local badger population.
In view of this, the chief veterinary officer (CVO) has advised that the period of culling this year should be extended to achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in Gloucestershire. Natural England is therefore considering an application for an extension from the cull company in Gloucestershire.
The pilots held this year are the first stage in a planned four-year cull. Three of the areas of the randomised badger culling trial also had a slow start. These areas saw an increase in the numbers of badgers removed in subsequent years and went on to contribute to overall disease benefits.
I have always been clear that both the Somerset and Gloucestershire culls are pilots. This has enabled us to test the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of controlled shooting as a means of reducing badger numbers and so reduce significantly disease in cattle. Having the two separate pilot areas has similarly enabled us to see how different environmental factors, field and other conditions affect the practical delivery of our objectives. Experience gained on the ground has been invaluable. I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who are undertaking the cull, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority who are determined to stop this disease control policy.
After the independent panel of experts has reported, we will consider all the information these pilots have generated and decide on next steps. The early indications are that, as in Somerset, the pilot in Gloucestershire has been safe and humane. Nevertheless, the Gloucestershire pilot has again demonstrated that the cull period may need to be longer than six weeks in future, enabling teams to adapt their approaches to suit local circumstances.
These pilots are another step towards halting the spread of bTB. We continue to make good progress on all aspects of our draft strategy to eradicate the disease in England within 25 years, including the development of workable badger and cattle vaccines and better biosecurity on farms. Collectively, we are putting in place the necessary measures for the successful long-term eradication of bTB in the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
2. When he expects bovine tuberculosis in England to have been eradicated.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I welcome the Opposition Front Benchers to their new positions—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is the new shadow Secretary of State, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who have stood down from the Government Front Bench, for their sterling work, for the absolute support I received, and for the sensible advice and experience they brought to their posts. I also welcome two new Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). They come from a rural background and will embellish the Department.
The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is that the Government have recently completed their consultation on a draft strategy for achieving officially bovine TB-free status for the whole of England in 25 years.
Mr Sheerman
The truth is that the cull is incompetent—it has been described as such by the lord mayor of Oxford, and the whole May family, including Brian May, say that it is a disaster—but we should not ignore the fact that what is being done to badgers in the west country is morally reprehensible. It is ineffective and inefficient, and ignores scientific opinion. Why does the Secretary of State not resign?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman supported a Government who did nothing about the disease. Thanks to the policies of the Government he supported, 305,000 otherwise healthy cattle were hauled off to slaughter at a cost to the British taxpayer of £500 million. If we go on as he left it, the disease would double over nine years, we would be looking at a bill of £1 billion and we would not have a cattle industry. The pilots were set up to establish the safety, the humaneness and the efficiency of a controlled shooting by skilled marksmen. It is quite clear that, after the first six weeks, we have succeeded on all three criteria.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Schools across Britain recently celebrated world milk day—milk is produced by cattle, Mr Speaker—which I saw for myself when I visited Pavilion nursery school in Attleborough, Mid Norfolk. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House applaud that initiative as a key opportunity to highlight the benefits of milk as the health drink, and the enormous pressures facing the UK dairy sector, not least the threat of TB in cattle. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the dairy market is working properly for consumers, processers and farmers?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was an extraordinarily strained attempt on the part of the hon. Gentleman to shoehorn his personal pre-occupations into Question 2, but the Secretary of State is a dextrous fellow, and I dare say he can respond pithily.
Mr Paterson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises a vital point—we need a dynamic, productive and successful dairy industry. We will not have a dairy industry if we do not tackle that bacterium, and if we do not do what every other sensible country has done when there is a reservoir of disease in cattle and a reservoir of disease in wildlife.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The estimate last October was that there were 4,300 badgers in Somerset. The estimate this week is 1,450. Is it the Secretary of State who has moved the goalposts, and not the badgers? Has he not scored a massive own goal in pursuing this misguided cull?
Mr Paterson
I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw my comments. I stated something that was screamingly obvious: badgers are wild animals that live in an environment in which their numbers are impacted by weather and disease. She should reflect on this. I can report to the House that some of the animals we have shot have been desperately sick—in the final stages of disease—which is why we are completely determined to see the pilot culls through, and why we will pursue measures that the previous Government ducked. We are dealing with a bacterium that affects cattle and wildlife, and ultimately human beings. We will address that bacterium in a rigorous and logical manner.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to that point, given that the policy must be based on sound science and evidence, can my right hon. Friend say whether there have been similar dramatic drops in badger numbers in the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency site at Woodchester park and sites such as Wytham in Oxfordshire, where they are monitored closely?
Mr Paterson
I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers at Woodchester park, but in other areas there has been a significant reduction in badger numbers compared with this time last year.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Last year, the Secretary of State cancelled the cull because there were too many badgers. Yesterday, he admitted that the cull in Somerset would be extended because he could not find enough of them. Can he explain why Gloucestershire has also applied for an extension, even though the six-week trial there has not finished? Is it because the badgers have moved the goalposts there as well?
Mr Paterson
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I should like her to reflect that, back in 1972, we had the disease beaten—it was down to 0.01%—when we had a bipartisan approach. In every other country where there is a serious problem in cattle and a serious problem in wildlife, both pools are addressed. Her Government tried to sort the problem out by addressing the disease only in cattle. That was a terrible mistake.
On the numbers, as I have just told the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), these animals are wild. There have been similar reductions in Gloucestershire. We are satisfied that, if the local farmers company wants to go on and to apply for an extension, we will be broadly supportive.
Maria Eagle
I am afraid that this policy is an absolute shambles. The Secretary of State has failed to meet his own target of eradicating 70% of the local badger population in Somerset, and it is clear that he expects to fail in Gloucestershire too. He must know that extending these trials risks spreading TB over a wider area. Rather than the ever-rising cost of policing his failed approach, we need a coherent plan to eradicate TB through the vaccination of badgers and cattle, and tougher rules on the movement of livestock. Instead of blaming the badgers, when will he stop being stubborn, admit he was wrong and abandon this misguided, unscientific and reckless killing of badgers?
Mr Paterson
I am disappointed by that question. We are clear—and we have had advice from the chief veterinary officer—that the number that was achieved in Somerset will lead to a reduction in disease. The hon. Lady should look at what Australia did with its buffalo pool, what New Zealand did with the brushtail possum and—importantly—what the Republic of Ireland did when it had a steadily rising crest of disease in cattle. As soon as the Irish started to remove diseased badgers, they saw a dramatic reduction in affected cattle and, happily, the average Irish badger is now 1kg heavier than before the cull. The Irish are arriving at a position that we want to reach— healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.
Mr Speaker
We need to speed up. Succinctness can be exemplified by Mr Laurence Robertson.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As part of the cull is taking place in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State for being the first in over a generation to tackle this issue. Does he share my concern at the statement made by the police and crime commissioner for Gloucestershire yesterday opposing the extension of the trial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what should happen, not a publicity-seeking PCC?
Mr Paterson
Policing issues are not for me. There will be legitimate protests because we live in a democracy and we respect that, but there is a grey line and we do not support obstruction of a policy that was endorsed by both parties in opposition and in government and has been endorsed by this House.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
3. What timetable he has set for the completion of the England coastal path.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
4. How many cattle were slaughtered in Britain as a result of bovine tuberculosis in the last 10 years; and at what cost.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Between 2003 and 2012, a total of 305,270 otherwise healthy cattle were compulsory slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of bovine TB. In England alone, the disease has cost the taxpayer £500 million in the past decade.
Sir Tony Baldry
Cattle may not have the same anthropomorphic advocates as some other animals, but they are equally part of God’s creation. Is it not a tragedy that more than 300,000 healthy cattle have had to be slaughtered? Is it not right that unless, collectively, we manage to sort out bovine TB, huge numbers of other healthy cattle will be slaughtered? There has to be some concern for cattle in all of this.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. In his county, 234 otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered in 2012. Shockingly, in the first six months of this year the number of healthy cattle slaughtered reached 307. I again appeal to those on the Opposition Front Bench to look at the policies pursued in America, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and even by their socialist friends in France, where there are regular culls of diseased animals. We do not have a valid cattle vaccine. We are working closely with the European Commission, but we are at least 10 years away from that, so the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) cannot hide behind dreams ahead. We have to address the disease now with the tools we have at the moment, as every other sensible country does.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is indeed a tragedy that so many cattle have been slaughtered, but that does not make a badger cull right or effective. The Department is reported to be undertaking new research into the possible gassing of badgers. Will he confirm that that is the case? If so, what is the scope of the research, and why does he have cause to think that the 2005 DEFRA review, which found that gassing badgers could not be done humanely, is no longer valid?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I have just said, until we can establish vaccines we have to use the tools employed by other sensible countries to remove wildlife. Our TB strategy is clear about looking at other methods of removing wildlife. Yes, gassing is under consideration, but we will not use it unless it is proven to be safe, humane and effective.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
14. Farmers in Stratford-on-Avon welcome the Government’s commitment to the control of bovine TB through the culling of badgers. There is, however, significant concern about the reservoir of TB in camelids and the lack of a testing or control regime for these animals. What do the Government intend to do on this matter?
Mr Paterson
I am acutely aware of the concerns of livestock farmers about the risk to cattle posed by camelids. However, evidence suggests that camelids pose a very small risk of spreading the disease to cattle and badgers. In fact, there are no known cases where a cattle breakdown has been caused directly by transmission from camelids. Nevertheless, I have asked the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England for advice on a proportionate disease control regime for the camelid sector, including how surveillance, breakdown and pre-movement testing can be more effectively carried out.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Media reports suggest that some gassing of badgers is taking place. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if his officials come across any evidence of the gassing of badgers, they pass it on to the police?
Mr Paterson
Emphatically yes, because any random cull would worsen the disease. If the hon. Member has such evidence, he should take it to the police.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friends on their new positions and I look forward to working with them. Sadly, bovine TB is well established and endemic in various parts of England, but other parts are free of the disease. What action is the Department taking to ensure that the disease does not spread from the highly infected areas to the less infected areas?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The danger is that unless we get a grip on the disease in high risk areas it will work its way across to other areas—I cited the figures for Oxfordshire in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). Our TB strategy is clear about containing the disease in high-risk areas and not letting it spread. We must be emphatic about that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Given that it has so far cost the taxpayers of Somerset and Gloucestershire £4 million, I was rather concerned that the Secretary of State implied that he did not think that policing was of any concern to him. Does he not think that that money would be better spent on a comprehensive badger vaccination programme?
Mr Paterson
I think the hon. Lady may have misinterpreted my comments. I do not handle policing; I handle disease in animals. This is a zoonosis, which has to be brought under control. It will take 10 years for a programme agreed with the European Commission to develop a cattle vaccine. Labour Members need to recognise that we cannot sit around as they did, waiting for a new tool to arrive. We have to use the existing tools, which have effectively reduced the disease in other more sensibly run countries.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
5. What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health, and I am today pleased to announce £3 million of funding from the anaerobic digestion loan fund, which will enable farmers to obtain funding to set up small-scale anaerobic digestion plants. The technology will not only save farmers money on energy costs, but will provide them with the opportunity to boost their income by exporting electricity to the grid. It will also help them cut waste and reduce the amount of artificial fertilisers they use. This funding is an example of this Government’s commitment to sustainable economic growth and environmental improvement. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Grahame M. Morris
I want to ask about food banks and, in particular, about the answers the Minister gave a few moments ago in response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I understand that in April 2013 DEFRA commissioned important research to review evidence on the landscape of food provision and access. Given that this information and research will be very helpful to Government in targeting policy to the most needy, why is it not being published? I know the Minister is new in post, but can he expedite this, because a promise was made that it would be posted on the Department’s website?
Mr Paterson
I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We undertake research on a whole range of areas and this obviously cuts across a number of different Departments, with whom we are consulting.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T4. Will the Secretary of State ensure more people are able to enjoy access to woodlands, particularly those close to our towns and cities?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T5. Given the importance of exports to the country’s economic recovery, what is my right hon. Friend doing to help producers and exporters open up foreign markets?
Mr Paterson
Only this week I was in Cologne, taking our largest ever delegation to the world’s largest food fair; last month, I was in Moscow, where we announced a trade deal opening up the market for beef and lamb which will be worth up to £100 million over three years; and our work last year in opening up China has led to a 591% increase in pork exports in the first six months of this year.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
T2. My constituents who work at Tate & Lyle have been very appreciative of the Secretary of State’s efforts to secure a level playing field for cane sugar refiners in the European market. His former ministerial team were very diligent on this issue. I welcome his new team and wonder whether he can reassure the House that they will be equally determined on this issue.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T3. Is the Secretary of State aware of the most recent piece of scientific research on the Cayman turtle farm? It supports the position of the World Society for the Protection of Animals that: “There is no humane way to farm sea turtles”. Will he, along with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, take decisive action to alleviate the suffering of these endangered animals?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The matter he raises is of real concern to a number of Members who have written to me. We are taking what actions we can, but we are the Government of the UK, and he has to remember that.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
T8. Poaching in some parts of Africa is getting so bad that Tanzanian Minister Khamis Kagasheki has called for a shoot-to-kill policy to deal with poachers, following the loss of half of Tanzania’s elephants in the past three years. On current trends, it is estimated that the African elephant will be extinct in the wild by 2025. What action are the Government taking to tackle the illegal trade in endangered species?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking issue, on which he is absolutely right. The problem is even worse in respect of rhinoceroses; we lose one every 11 hours. So this Government are taking a world lead. We are calling a conference on 13 February next year, and we intend to co-ordinate world action—with western countries, with the countries where these animals live and with the countries where there is significant demand—before these iconic species become extinct.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T7. Whether or not the Government see sense next week and accept our amendments on dog control notices, that will not resolve all the issues relating to dangerous dogs, including controlling breeding, and ensuring that puppies are properly socialised and that children and adults are educated about dog ownership. Does the Minister agree that we still need a full dog welfare and control Bill?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Do my right hon. and hon. Friends share my alarm at the growing practice of Natural England’s insisting on the removal of sheep from land under new stewardship projects? Given the absolute need for the UK to be able to provide more of its own food, is that not a dangerous step? Will Ministers take action?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which touches on our conundrum in the hill areas, where we clearly want to increase food production but also want to improve the environment. We will be consulting shortly on whether we modulate a significant sum from pillar 1 to pillar 2 and what the shape and form of those pillar 2 schemes might be. I am absolutely clear that we have a real role to play in helping hill farmers to keep the hills looking as they do and to provide them with sufficient money to provide food.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Is it acceptable that properties built after 2009 and small businesses will not be covered by the Government’s new flood insurance scheme?
Mr Paterson
We are working very closely with the Association of British Insurers on the new scheme, which will replace the statement of principles, and we are looking in detail at a range of different options. We do not propose to extend the scheme to post-2009 properties.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Local people have for many years expressed concern about the Whitsand bay dump site. They have identified an alternative site; will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the reclassification of that alternative site?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
To better understand the spread of TB in wildlife, why are the badgers that are being culled not being tested to see whether they are infected or not?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Let me clarify in simple terms: carcases that have been shot would not give an accurate reading following post-mortem.
European Environmental Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Council meeting will open with an exchange of views on a proposal to amend regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 on shipments of waste. The Commission is concerned by the uneven standard of enforcement across member states against illegal shipments of waste and would like to strengthen the requirements for enforcement. The Commission has issued a proposal to amend the regulation to require competent authorities to prepare and publish inspection plans. The amendments would introduce provisions for competent authorities to request proof from an exporter where it was suspected that they were exporting waste in the guise of a product in order to evade the controls, and also to request evidence that material exported for recovery had been recovered in an environmentally sound manner in the destination country. The amendments would also allow the Commission to adopt delegated acts on technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange for the submission of documents and information. The UK supports the principle of strengthening the enforcement of the regulations, but has concerns about some of the detail in the proposal.
After a series of AOB points, the Council will then seek to adopt non-legislative Council conclusions on preparations for the 19th Session of the conference of the parties (COP 19) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the ninth session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol (CMP 9). COP 19 will take place in Warsaw, Poland from 11 to 22 November 2013, and these conclusions will form the basic framework of the EU’s negotiating position at COP 19.
Ministers will then break for a working lunch, during which they will discuss green infrastructure. In May 2013, the Commission adopted a communication on an EU-wide strategy on green infrastructure, which foresees a series of actions that provide an enabling framework, combining policy signals, technical or scientific actions, and better access to finance. The strategy will be implemented within the context of existing legislation, policy instruments and funding mechanisms.
In the afternoon the presidency will present a compromise package of amendments, determining how vehicle manufacturers will achieve existing long-term CO2 targets for cars. Some member states have expressed reservations with the deal following concerns raised by industry, and discussion of the package and possible compromise amendments are expected.
Over the course of the day, the following topics will be covered under “any other business”:
Information from the Commission on the EU emissions trading scheme/aviation.
Information from the presidency and the Commission on international meetings and events.
Information from the Commission on a system for monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international maritime transport.
Information from the Danish delegation on a political declaration concerning the use of industrial gas credits under the effort-sharing decision and from the Commission on facilitating a global HFC phase-down agreement under the Montreal protocol.
Information from the Hungarian delegation on the “Budapest Water Summit” (8-11 October 2013).
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The two badger cull pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers. Successfully tackling bovine TB (bTB) in the badger population is a key element in our strategy to rid England of bTB within 25 years.
Today I am announcing to the House that the six-week period of the Somerset TB control pilot cull was completed on 6 October. Current indications suggest that the pilot has been safe, humane and effective in delivering a reduction in the badger population of just under 60%. We set ourselves a challenging target of aiming to ensure that 70% of the badger population was removed during the pilot. The chief veterinary officer (CVO) has advised that the 60% reduction this year will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull. However, Natural England are considering an application from Somerset for a short extension of the culling period, as provided for under the agreement with the company. The advice of the CVO is that further increasing the number of badgers culled would improve those benefits even further and enable them to accrue earlier.
The targets for this cull were set at the outset on the basis of population estimates carried out in September 2012. This was repeated in August 2013 immediately before the culls started.
The results of this latest exercise show that the estimated number of badgers is significantly fewer in both areas compared to last summer. In Somerset the latest population estimate is 1,450 compared to 2,400 last year, and in Gloucestershire 2,350 compared to 3,400.
In the six weeks of the cull, 850 badgers have been removed in Somerset.
One of the lessons we have learned already from this pilot is that in order to ensure high levels of safety and humaneness, the cull period may need to be longer than six weeks in future. The independent panel of experts will consider all the information which has been collated during the culls and it will be made publicly available after the culls have finished.
The cull in Gloucestershire is still ongoing and I will make a further statement when the six weeks is completed. I understand that this morning Gloucestershire is also submitting an application for an extension to Natural England.
To achieve our aim of ridding England of bTB within 25 years will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means. Our cattle industry and the countryside deserve no less.