EU Environment Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 10 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 noble Friend Lord de Mauley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Resource Management, the Local Environment and Environmental Science, represented the UK at the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 18 June. Paul Wheelhouse, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also attended.
After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislative “A” items, Environment Ministers adopted council conclusions on the Commission’s strategy on adaptation to climate change, making only one change to the text. Member states and the Commission shared the view that the conclusions represented a good balance of opinions. Portugal called for inclusion of specific examples of the impacts of climate change in the text. This received broad support and the conclusions were adopted with this amendment. The Commission urged Environment Ministers to be aware of discussions on the uptake of adaptation measures in other policy areas, for example in the common agricultural policy. Member states underlined the importance of taking action on adaptation, with many expressing sympathy to those member states who had recently suffered from severe flooding, and praised various aspects of the Commission’s strategy, especially on mainstreaming adaptation into EU policies and improving knowledge sharing.
The Irish presidency then introduced its progress report on negotiations to amend directives relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and the promotion of energy from renewable sources, in order to address the indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts of biofuels. The presidency acknowledged that there were diverging opinions, but hoped that consensus could be reached. Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard defended the Commission’s proposal, arguing that it represented a reasonable balance between delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions and respecting existing investments in biofuels. The presidency invited brief comments from member states, but indicated that substantive discussion would take place at working group level. Several member states, including the UK, intervened. Points raised included the need for robust action; the proposed 5% cap on crop-based biofuels; the advanced biofuel sub-target; and mutual recognition of national biofuel certification schemes.
On the follow-up to the United Nations conference on sustainable development (“Rio+20”), Ministers endorsed Council conclusions on the overarching post-2015 agenda and exchanged views on the links between the UN Secretary General’s high-level panel report on the post-2015 development agenda and the elaboration of the sustainable development goals. Commissioner Potocnik welcomed the Council conclusions and noted that they gave a clear signal for an integrated framework. He drew particular attention to six issues: the promotion of drivers for the green economy; the role of sustainable consumption; the need for planetary boundaries to be respected; the need for an integrated approach in developing the future framework; improving the financing of the post-2015 framework; and the need to speak with one EU voice. Member states were broadly positive about the Council conclusions. Ministers also responded to the presidency’s questions on the links between the UN’s high-level panel of eminent persons on the post 2015 development agenda and the elaboration of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The presidency noted strong support from member states for the high-level panel report, for a single development agenda, and for the five transformational shifts—particularly for the focus on sustainable development. The presidency noted that there was no consensus yet on the priority areas but that it was important to more fully integrate the environment into the goals.
Under AOB items, the Council took note of the Irish presidency’s note on the aviation emissions trading scheme. The Commission called upon Ministers to agree upon a regional market-based system; indicated that it was important for the EU to speak with one voice in international negotiations; and highlighted the importance of foreign airlines being included in the “stop the clock” system. The Council then took note of the presidency’s progress report on negotiations on the fluorinated greenhouse gases proposal, with the Commission referencing the recent US-China agreement on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). On the environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive, the presidency summarised the discussion so far. The Commission observed that everyone wanted the EIA to be more effective and efficient, and that harmonisation across the EU was necessary to create a level playing field. On access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, the presidency recapped the discussion that took place at March Council. The Commission was confident that progress made under the Irish presidency would be a good basis for discussions with the European Parliament after the summer.
Continuing with the AOB items, the deputy ambassador from the Netherlands introduced an information note to the Council on micro-plastic litter in the environment. Italy, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark intervened in favour of the Netherlands proposal, while the UK encouraged further voluntary action with industry. The Commission welcomed the Netherlands initiative, and indicated that it would look into the issue in the context of its Green Paper on plastic waste. Hungary then introduced its information note on the forthcoming “Budapest water summit”, which will take place 8-11 October 2013. Finally, the incoming Lithuanian presidency set out its work programme for the coming six months.
Ministers then broke for a working lunch, during which the marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) was discussed. Professor Laurence Mee, director of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, gave a presentation on the main challenges for implementation of the MSFD. A wide-ranging discussion followed, with an emphasis on blue and green growth. Commissioner Damanaki (DG MARE) spoke about the common fisheries policy, and about the importance of working together to tackle marine pollution. The Commissioner confirmed thatj its current view was that targets on marine litter would not be mandatory, and that any consideration of targets would be on a Europe-wide basis rather than at a national level.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 11 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 Monday 24 and Tuesday 25 June in Luxembourg. I will be representing the UK, accompanied by Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA.
Monday and Tuesday will concentrate on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. There are no fishery items scheduled for this Council.
Council negotiations will centre on the four regulations that make up the CAP reform package. The Irish presidency will be looking to obtain a full political agreement on the CAP reform package during this Council.
Hazardous Waste (National Policy Statement)
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 11 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)
Having considered consultation responses and the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the draft national policy statement for hazardous waste which was laid before Parliament on 14 July 2011, I am today laying (under sections 9(8) and 5(4) of the Planning Act 2008), the proposed national policy statement for hazardous waste. The Government’s response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee report (under section 9(5) of the Planning Act 2008 was laid earlier this morning.
A written response to the consultation is also being published on the Department’s website at: www.gov.uk.
National policy statements are critical to the new planning system, which will help developers bring forward hazardous waste projects of national significance without facing unnecessary delays. Decisions will be taken in an accountable way by elected Ministers taking social, environmental and economic impacts into account. The process will also ensure that local people have an opportunity to have their say about how their communities develop.
The hazardous waste national policy statement sets out our need for new hazardous waste infrastructure to manage the hazardous waste. Despite measures to prevent and minimise the production of hazardous waste, arisings have remained significant despite the economic downturn. DEFRA’s “Strategy For Hazardous Waste Management in England”, issued in 2010 sets out the Department’s policies for the management of hazardous waste, which are essentially to manage it in accordance with the waste hierarchy, so that we recycle or recover the waste where possible and reduce amounts sent for final disposal. That strategy set out the types of facility needed, some of which are nationally significant.
We look to the market to provide these facilities. The waste industry is best placed to consider the most appropriate types of technologies to use. Government’s role is to provide the right framework and encouragement to the private sector to bring the necessary infrastructure forward. This national policy statement sets out the framework in which decisions for applications for development consent for hazardous waste infrastructure will be made and should provide industry with the clarity it needs to bring forward applications for development consent for new infrastructure for hazardous waste.
The proposed national policy statement for hazardous waste will be designated if a period of 21 sitting days elapses without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, pursuant to section 5(4)(a) of the Planning Act 2008.
Badger Cull
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that bovine tuberculosis (TB) has, as a consequence of the lack of effective counter-measures, spread from a few isolated incidents to affect large parts of England and Wales, resulting in the slaughter of 28,000 cattle in England alone in 2012 at a cost of £100 million to the taxpayer; is concerned that 305,000 cattle have been slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of bovine TB in the last decade and that the cost is expected to rise to over £1 billion over the next 10 years; recognises that to deal effectively with the disease every available tool should be employed; accordingly welcomes the strengthening of bio-security measures and stringent controls on cattle movements; further welcomes the research and investment into both cattle and badger vaccines, and better diagnostic testing, but recognises that despite positive work with the European Commission the use of a viable and legal cattle vaccine has been confirmed to be still at least 10 years away; further notes that no country has successfully borne down on bovine TB without dealing with infection in the wildlife population, and that the Randomised Badger Control Trials demonstrated both the link between infection in badgers and in cattle and that culling significantly reduces incidence; looks forward to the successful conclusion of the current pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset; and welcomes the Government’s development of a comprehensive strategy to reverse the spread of bovine TB and officially eradicate this disease.”.
Today’s debate is about getting to grips with Mycobacterium bovis, a bacterium that can affect all mammals including humans and has proved to be extremely resistant to all manner of attempts at eradication. It is a subject on which, over many years, there has been a great deal of agreement between the political parties. That was certainly the case in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when a combination of political consensus and concerted action meant that we had the disease effectively beaten. In 1972, tests revealed only 0.1% of cattle in the country to be infected. I very much regret that as the issue has become politicised our grip on the disease has weakened, with the result that more than 60% of herds in high-risk areas such as Gloucestershire have been infected. The number of new cases is doubling every 10 years. I hope we can all agree that bovine TB is the most pressing animal health problem facing this country. The significance of the epidemic for our cattle farmers, their families and their communities cannot be overstated.
Miss McIntosh
The statistics show that the spread and increase in the United Kingdom is almost unique. Does my right hon. Friend attribute anything to the fact that we were, for very good reasons, the only country to have given the badger protected status in the 1970s—no other EU member state did so—so its natural predator has not been able to control the increase in numbers and the potential spread of disease through the badger population?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her question, and I thank her for her report published this morning. We are the only country that I know of with a significant problem with TB in cattle and a significant problem of TB in wildlife that does not bear down on the disease in wildlife. Section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 allows the removal of diseased badgers for protection and to prevent disease.
This disease was once isolated in small pockets of the country, but it has now spread extensively through the west of England and Wales. Last year TB led to the slaughter of more than 28,000 cattle in England, at a cost to the taxpayer of almost £100 million. In the last 10 years bovine TB has seen 305,000 cattle slaughtered across Great Britain, costing the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that that sum will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked. We cannot afford to let that happen.
If we do not take tough, and sometimes unpopular, decisions, we will put at risk the success story that is the UK cattle industry. The UK’s beef and dairy exporters have worked hard to develop markets, which were valued at £1.7 billion in 2011. Our dairy exports alone grew by almost 20% in 2011. We cannot afford to put such important and impressive industry performance at risk.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The NFU in north Yorkshire supports my right hon. Friend’s policy. It is desperate that this disease should not come north to Yorkshire, and it gives the policy its full support.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he is in close touch with the farming community, and we appreciate that it is under great pressure, which is why we are determined to introduce measures that will, we hope, reduce the disease in high-risk areas and, crucially, stop it going into low-risk areas.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has highlighted the costs to the individual farmer and the taxpayer, but does he recognise that having disease-free cattle is important to the agri-food industry—a multi-billion pound industry in the United Kingdom that is especially important to economies such as Northern Ireland’s?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the potentially very serious impact on the agri-food industry if we do not get a grip on this disease. We are determined to work on this policy, and to learn the lessons from the experience of the neighbouring state of the Republic of Ireland and other countries.
The task of managing bovine TB and bringing it under control is difficult and complex, but that is no excuse for further inaction. This Government are committed to using all the tools at our disposal and continuing to develop new ones, because we need a comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease. International experience clearly shows that controlling wildlife species that harbour the disease and can pass it on to cattle must be part of that package.
Mrs Main
I have written to the Secretary of State on this matter. I asked about the impact of a cull in the context of the whole package of measures. I received a reply from one of his ministerial colleagues, which referred to the fall in badger TB rates in New Zealand, saying that was
“a result of rigorous biosecurity, strict cattle movement controls and proactive wildlife management.”
I have asked for clarification, however. How much of that success was attributed to the cull? The other two steps taken may well have contributed significantly. I hope the Secretary of State will expand on such details for the benefit of those of us who are torn over this matter.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, in which she raises one of the most pertinent points: there is no single solution. Removing wildlife alone is not the solution. There has to be parallel, and equally rigorous, work on cattle. There must be a mixture of both measures. That is the lesson to be learned from the countries I have recently visited, as I was just about to go on to explain.
In recent months, I have been to Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, and when I was in Opposition I went to the United States of America. All those countries have made great progress in dealing with very similar problems to ours by dealing with the wildlife reservoir and bearing down on the disease in cattle.
In Australia, a national eradication programme spanning almost three decades enabled official freedom from bovine TB—an infection rate of less than 0.2% under OIE rules—be achieved in 1997. Its comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease in domestic cattle and wildlife included rigorous culling of feral water buffalo. Australia’s achievement is even more impressive when one considers the difficulty of the terrain and the size of the area over which such an extensive programme of testing and culling took place.
After my visit to Australia, I went to New Zealand. Its comprehensive and successful package of measures to eradicate the disease has focused on the primary wildlife reservoir of brush-tailed possums. As a result of its efforts, New Zealand is on the verge of achieving BTB-free status. The number of infected cattle and deer herds has reduced from more than 1,700 in the mid-1990s to just 66 in 2012.
The Republic of Ireland, too, has a comprehensive eradication programme, which includes the targeted culling of badgers in areas where the disease is attributed to wildlife. From massive problems in the 1960s—160,000 cattle were slaughtered in 1962 alone—the Irish authorities have turned things around to the extent that the number of reactor cattle has reduced to just 18,000 in 2012, a fall of 10,000 in the last 10 years. On their own figures, herd incidence has fallen to just 4.26%—a statistic we would dearly love to have here.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is explaining the Government’s policy very well indeed. Does he have any idea what proportion of badgers culled in the Republic of Ireland were carriers of TB? No one wants to see badgers culled unless there is no alternative, but many of them are diseased and will in due course die and suffer great pain.
Mr Paterson
That is a very helpful question. On first analysis, the estimate was about 16%, but the Irish have done a huge amount of work on this, and I admire the scientific manner in which they have gone about it, and on detailed analysis and after careful autopsy the proportion can be seen to be three or four times higher than that. That shows why this disease is so difficult to deal with: it is difficult to identify in both wildlife and cattle.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Section 4.5 of the Krebs report had some important things to say about the Department—then called the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and mathematical modelling, which is a hugely important tool that is not used as widely as it could be. What is the Secretary of State going to do to help drive forward that part of the work, which is clearly needed, so we get a better understanding of what is happening, with or without the cull?
Mr Paterson
That is an interesting question. We are following on from the Krebs trials—the RBCTs or randomised badger culling trials—and going to the next logical step, by learning the lessons from them and improving on them. One of the lessons was that 100 km is not a big enough area. We will extend it to nearly 300 km, so we have clear, definitive geographical boundaries. We will also be doing more analysis of the impact. These are two pilots, but the broad lesson to be learned from the countries I have mentioned is that we have to bear down both on disease in cattle in a very rigorous manner, as we are doing, and on disease in wildlife.
When I was in opposition, I went to Michigan and saw its stringent cattle and wildlife controls, which have enabled significant progress to be made, with a lowering of the prevalence of the disease in white-tailed deer in the endemic area by more than 60% and breakdowns in livestock averaging just three or four a year from 2005 to 2011. I could go on at great length, but I know we are short of time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is giving a lot of international examples, but I would like to know what lessons he is learning from the vaccination project in Wales, which shows that there clearly is an alternative. I have read the results of the project closely, and I would like to know what lessons he has learned.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I ask him to wait a few minutes because I am coming on to deal with it. Let me first finish off the international comparisons.
Mark Tami
The Secretary of State has talked about how he has been around the world to look at all these approaches, but the science we are looking at is the science in the UK. Clearly, as even those in favour of a cull would agree, the actual progress it will make is very small, even if progress is taken as a fact. We need a combination of measures. As some Government Members have said, culling will make only a small difference and it will not eradicate the disease.
Mr Paterson
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite listened to what I said. If he makes comparisons with the countries I have mentioned, he will see that where there are strict cattle controls, movement controls and biosecurity, and countries bear down on the disease, the disease is reduced. The experience of the Republic of Ireland is spectacular and we should be humble enough to learn from it.
Let us consider other European countries. Badger culling is undertaken in France; there have been reports in just the past week or so of problems in the Ardennes, with infected badgers being culled. Deer and wild boar are culled in the Baltic countries, Germany, Poland and Spain. So we cannot ignore the lessons from such countries, which are so clearly presented to us.
Mr Paterson
I will take one more intervention, but I do want to give other hon. Members the chance to speak.
Steve McCabe
The Secretary of State is drawing on these European comparisons, so why does his own amendment talk about “stringent” movement controls, given that we have the loosest movement controls in the European Union, with about 40% of our cattle being moved annually? Surely he should start by doing something about that. Is that not a comparison he should recognise?
Mr Paterson
I do not think that is a very accurate statement. We have very strict movement controls and our farmers find them difficult to adhere to; they put real pressure on farmers.
If we are to tackle bovine TB, we must not only maintain rigorous biosecurity and strict cattle movement controls, but bear down on the disease in wildlife.
Andrew George
My right hon. Friend will recollect that the randomised badger control trials studied not only the effects of culling on the badger population and the prevalence of TB, but the actions of homo sapiens, and their capacity to intervene and to disrupt trials. Such actions were a factor in the trials and are a factor particularly prevalent in the UK but not prevalent in many of the countries he has named.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that you are an assiduous reader of Hansard, Mr Speaker, and you probably remember every one of my 600 parliamentary questions on this issue, one of which revealed that, as my hon. Friend suggested, 56% of the traps were tampered with during the Krebs trials and 14% were actually stolen. That is one of the lessons we are learning from the trials—there might be a more efficient and humane manner of removing badgers.
Anyone who has looked closely at this issue will see that a comprehensive cattle testing programme, combined with restrictions on cattle movements, remains the foundation of our policy. Restrictions have been further strengthened over the past year to reduce the chance of disease spreading from cattle. In January, we introduced a new surveillance testing regime and stricter cattle movement controls, which means that we will be testing more cattle annually and working hard to get in front of the disease, to protect those parts of the country where bovine TB is not a major problem. We will continue to maintain the significant effort we have put into enhancing cattle controls and combating cattle-to-cattle transmission.
Mr Paterson
Other Members want to get speak, so, if I may, I will push on a bit further.
Vaccination is another tool that we will continue to invest in—we are spending £15.5 million on research and development in this Parliament—one that I know many hon. Members would like to see deployed. Some £43 million has been invested since 1994 in this vital work, to which the shadow Secretary of State alluded. We, too, would like to deploy it more widely, but I am afraid that we are just not there yet in terms of either development or practicality, as has been clearly described in this morning’s Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report.
Oral cattle and badger vaccines will, I hope, prove viable, but they will not be ready to deploy for years, and we cannot wait while the disease puts more livestock farms out of business and threatens the sustainability of the industry. In January, the Minister of State and I met the EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, Tonio Borg, to discuss our progress towards a cattle vaccine. He acknowledged that we have done more than any other country to take this work forward, but confirmed that the implementation of a legal and validated cattle vaccine is still at least 10 years away.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Will the Secretary of State clarify the comments he made a moment ago? If a viable badger vaccination, be it oral or injectable, were developed within the next few years, would he then have no intention to proceed with any cull? Would it be his preference to move forward with the vaccination of badgers instead?
Mr Paterson
I was going to come on to deal with that question but I will touch on it now. Clearly, an effective badger vaccine has a valuable role to play, once the disease is under control. I have discussed this at length in the Republic of Ireland, where they have got the disease well on the way down. Once it can be got to those really low levels—this answers the question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—there is a definitely a role for a badger vaccine. There is no question about that, but the vaccine has to work.
My worry—I am jumping ahead a bit in respect of Wales here—is that at the moment there is nothing to be gained by vaccinating a diseased animal. Such an animal can continue to be a super-excreter and can continue to spread disease. That is the problem I have with the Welsh experiment. We are very interested in it and we will watch it carefully, but from my travels—I was particularly struck by the Irish experience, and they have done a lot of work on this—I know that the lesson is, “You have to get the disease down to a certain level to get healthy badgers, and then you protect them.” We all want to see healthy badgers living alongside healthy cattle, and the real lesson from Ireland is that the average badger there is now 1 kg heavier than before the cull was begun there. So the Irish have achieved where we want to go; they are getting a healthy badger population, which is exactly what we want, but that is the point at which vaccinations can be deployed. I am not entirely convinced that the Welsh Government are on the right track—I think they are going in too early, because they have not got a grip on the disease—but we wish them well.
Sadly, vaccination is incredibly expensive. The cost of vaccination in Wales stands at £662 per badger or £3,900 per square kilometre per year. Even if the practical difficulties could be addressed, we know that a large-scale programme of badger vaccination would take longer to achieve disease control benefits compared with a programme of culling on a similar scale.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to one area of healthy badgers, just to draw on his point about vaccination? Cheshire is on the frontier in terms of the disease spreading north. I am working closely with Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the National Farmers Union to see whether there is the possibility of having a vaccinated band of badgers across Cheshire to prevent that northern spread. Will he work with those two organisations and me to see what can be practically achieved?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that useful question. I know that he is already talking to my hon. Friend the Minister of State about it. It is certainly worth examining the approach of creating rings, but the lesson from other countries is that we have really got to get the disease reservoir down first and then we can create a band. The problem is that with the level of disease we are talking about we cannot gain an advantage by vaccinating a diseased animal that is already a super-excreter—it can go on excreting disease in huge volumes. Another of my questions revealed that 1 ml of badger urine produces 300,000 colony forming units of disease, and it takes very few—a single number of those—to infect a cattle by aspiration. Such an approach will not have the effect, so what my right hon. Friend is talking about is well worth looking at, but in parallel with that we have to get the disease down.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Secretary of State for so generously giving way. Does he recall comparing the search by scientists for a TB vaccine to Sisyphus—or Tantalus, as he later clarified it—because it was always out of reach? Does he understand how insulting many scientists found that comparison and how it undermines his scientific credibility? If he does not understand how science works, how we can trust his analysis of the evidence?
Mr Paterson
I think the hon. Lady is being a little hard. We have given credit to the previous Government, whom she supported, for their significant investment in vaccines. We will continue that investment, we had Commissioner Borg over and we had an incredibly constructive discussion. Sisyphus is trying to shove the rock uphill and Tantalus is reaching in the pool—it is incredibly frustrating for us all that a result is still 10 years away.
Let me get back to the badger vaccine and the important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). Early small trials on calves in Ethiopia show that it is only 56% to 68% effective. There is a lot of work to be done to get a vaccine that really works and then a vaccine that can be identified. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), one cannot have international trade under OIE rules if one cannot identify a diseased animal and a vaccinated animal. The last thing I would do is cast aspersions on any scientists working on this question, as we all have a massive interest in arriving at a solution, but every time we look, it is at least 10 years away. According to the timetable Commissioner Borg has set us, we will do well if we stick to that 10 years.
Mr Paterson
I am going to push on.
That is another reason we plan to consult on a new draft TB eradication strategy for England over the coming months, which is mentioned in the amendment and will set out in some detail how we plan to reach our long-term goal of achieving officially bovine TB-free status for England. That will involve better diagnostic tests such as PCR—polymerase chain reaction—and targeted controls to bear down on the disease where it is at its worst, stop the spread across new areas and protect the relative disease freedom that large parts of the country already enjoy.
All those who take the problem seriously now accept that research in this country over the past 15 years has demonstrated that cattle and badgers transmit the disease to each other. There are few now who choose to argue that culling badgers, done carefully and correctly, cannot lead to a reduction of the disease in cattle.
In 1997, Lord Krebs and the independent scientific review group concluded that:
“The sum of evidence strongly supports the view that, in Britain, badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. Most of this evidence is indirect, consisting of correlations rather than demonstrations of cause and effect; but in total the available evidence, including the effects of completely removing badgers from certain areas, is compelling.”
Since then, ongoing analysis of the results of the randomised badger culling trial has shown beyond reasonable doubt the important role that culling can play in checking the progress of bovine TB, despite any initial disruption to badger populations on the edge of the culled area. Professor Christl Donnelly, a former member of the ISG, wrote:
“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28 per cent lower than in ‘survey only’ areas and on lands up to 2 km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1 per cent lower than outside ‘survey only’ areas.”
I firmly believe, based on the best available evidence, that culling badgers to control TB can make a significant contribution to getting on top of this terrible disease. I have no doubt that the benefits from badger control will prove worth while to the businesses, farmers and communities that have suffered for too long. That is why it is crucial that the pilots go ahead.
The National Farmers Union has taken the lead on behalf of the farming industry and has planned and organised the pilot culls. It has been working tirelessly over the last few months to make them a success, ensuring all involved carry out their functions to a very high, professional standard and in ways that take full account of the need to protect public safety. I have been immensely impressed by the effort, commitment and determination that have been demonstrated by farmers in the two pilot areas, despite the unacceptable intimidation and hostility that some have endured.
The professionalism of the police, with whom we continue to work, also deserves praise. It is possible that some additional policing will be needed to enable peaceful protest during the pilots, and that may add to their costs. I hope it is not necessary for the police to deal with people who are intent on unlawful and threatening behaviour towards law-abiding and hard-working people. Such obstructive action cannot be allowed to prevent us from tackling the disease.
Opponents of the policy will say that it is possible to rid the country of bovine TB without tackling the problem in wildlife. There is no evidence for that in any other country where there is or has been a significant reservoir of the disease in species of wildlife that can pass it to cattle, as is unfortunately the case here. My experiences in Australia, Michigan, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland have absolutely reinforced that essential point.
Members might be told that we will fail because we do not have enough reliable estimates of badger numbers in the pilot areas. On the contrary, we have invested considerable time and effort in monitoring work to establish a reliable estimate of the number of badgers in the areas. Those figures were used by Natural England as part of the licensing process to set the minimum and maximum number of badgers to be culled. Members might also hear from some quarters that we are putting the badger population in those areas at risk of extinction. That too is untrue, as confirmed in the opinion of the Bern convention.
The two pilots will see the removal of about 5,000 badgers—a minimum of 2,081 in west Somerset and 2,856 in west Gloucestershire. That is about 10% of the 50,000 badgers killed on our roads each year or just over 1% of the estimated national population. The number of badgers culled and the culling method used in each case will be recorded by the operators and be part of the licence returns to Natural England. During the pilots, there will also be independent monitoring of the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of badger control.
I hope it is evident why the Government are committed to the policy. It is just one element of a comprehensive approach to the eradication of bovine TB, as our amendment to the motion makes clear, but it is an essential element and one that can help us start to win the war against a bacterium that has proved so damaging and resilient to other interventions.
We will not shy from tough decisions that we believe to be fully evidence-based and fundamentally the right thing to do. We will continue to work with all those who wish to see healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers. I therefore hope that Opposition Members will reconsider their position and support our amendment, which sets out the broad, balanced and evidence-based approach we are taking to tackle this horrible disease.
Nia Griffith
It is indeed difficult to make comparisons with other countries, where ecological patterns are very different. Perturbation has been mentioned by other speakers, so I will not go into great detail on that; instead, I want to talk about cattle vaccination, because that is what will put the farmer in control, and we should put a lot of effort into it. I am therefore saddened that whereas we spent £3.5 million on this in 2009-10, this Government have cut the funding for that sort of research to £2 million for the next financial year—
Mr Paterson
That is because there is no money, because you messed up the economy. [Interruption.]
Food Supply Networks
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 11 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 would like to announce to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have asked Professor Chris Elliott, of Queen’s University Belfast, to lead an independent review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks in response to the vulnerabilities recently exposed by horsemeat fraud. I am pleased that he has accepted, subject to the necessary formalities being concluded with Queen’s University Belfast.
On 15 April 2013, Official Report, column 13WS, the House was informed that it was our intention to take forward a strategic review of the horsemeat incident and its implications for the food chain and regulatory framework. We have since concluded that the review should examine food supply networks more widely. We have therefore asked Professor Elliott to provide advice to me and my right hon. Friend on issues which impact upon consumer confidence in the authenticity of food products and any systemic failures in food supply networks which could have implications for food safety and public health. We expect him to make recommendations to support improvements in current systems and to improve consumer confidence.
The review will begin shortly and I anticipate it will take nine to 12 months to complete. My right hon. Friend and I have asked for interim advice in December and for a final report by spring 2014. We have also asked Professor Elliott to provide emerging findings on the European aspects of the review so that we can continue to influence action at a European level and effectively engage in the European Union process.
The reviewer will in due course issue a call for evidence seeking information and views on the integrity of the food supply network, any vulnerabilities and how assurances might be strengthened to support consumer confidence. Food fraud is completely unacceptable and consumers have every right to expect their food to be correctly described. In response to horsemeat fraud, investigations continue at a number of sites across the UK and Europe.
In April, the Board of the Food Standards Agency commissioned Professor Pat Troop to conduct an independent review of that organisation’s response to horsemeat fraud. Professor Troop will be reporting her emerging findings to the board of the Food Standards Agency at its open meeting later today. My right hon. Friend and I expect any strategic findings from the Pat Troop review to be considered in our joint review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks.
The terms of reference for the review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks are being placed in the House Library.
Balance of Competences
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 12 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 the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and I have today published the call for evidence relating to the environment and climate change report as part of the balance of competences review.
This report, which will be completed by the end of 2013, will focus on the application and effect of the EU’s competence in relation to the environment and climate change. Much of the UK’s environment and climate change policy is now agreed at EU level, with comparatively few areas remaining exclusively within the competence of member states. One example of national competence is land use planning, although there are an increasing number of EU requirements affecting planning and development. All aspects of EU environment policy are potentially covered by this report including, but not limited to, air quality, water quality, nature protection, chemicals and waste.
The climate change aspects of the report will include international climate change negotiations, the reduction of collective EU member state greenhouse gas emissions via burden-sharing arrangements and the EU emissions trading system. It will not include renewable energy or energy efficiency, both of which will be discussed in the energy report, to be launched in the autumn.
The call for evidence period will be open for 12 weeks. My Department and the Department for Energy and Climate Change will draw together the evidence and policy analysis into a first draft which will subsequently go through a process of scrutiny before publication towards the end of 2013.
We will take a rigorous approach to the collection and analysis of evidence. The call for evidence sets out the scope of the report and includes a series of questions on which contributors are invited to focus. The evidence received—subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act—will be published alongside the final report and will be available on: www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences.
Our Departments will pursue an active engagement process, consulting with departmental select committees, the devolved Administrations, businesses 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.
The resulting report is intended to be a comprehensive, thorough and detailed analysis of EU competence for environment and climate change and what this means for the UK. It will aid our understanding of the nature of our EU membership and will provide a constructive and serious contribution to the wider European debate about modernising, reforming and improving the EU. The report will not produce specific policy recommendations.
I am placing this document and the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also be published on: www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of- competences.
Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 12 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 would like to update the House on the work of the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce which publishes its report today. This is further to my written ministerial statement of 6 December 2012, Official Report, column 74WS in which I outlined the Government’s response to Chalara and the early work of this taskforce.
I asked DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, to establish the taskforce in response to the rise in plant pests and diseases that threaten the UK. I welcome the taskforce’s report, and would like to thank the chairman, Professor Chris Gilligan, and the other members, for their hard work over the past few months. I pay tribute to their insightful approach. I believe their recommendations will lay the groundwork for a radical reappraisal of what we can do to protect the UK from these threats. I am placing a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.
Healthy trees are essential to the natural environment in the countryside and in our towns and cities. They are also central to the economic resilience of our forestry industry, and at the core of our commitment to protect, improve and expand forests and woodlands. Crops and horticultural plants are vital to our food supply and our rural economy. Some of the pests and diseases that threaten our trees and crops, such as “Chalara fraxinea” are now established in the UK; there are many others on the horizon which have yet to reach these shores, but may do so in the future unless action is taken. In its final report, which is published today, the taskforce makes recommendations on what we can do—in a national and international context—to manage established pests and diseases and to improve biosecurity at our borders to prevent further incursion.
Given the importance the Government attach to plant health, I intend to act immediately on some of the key recommendations of the taskforce. A single, prioritised plant health risk register will be produced. This will help ensure that we are able to identify risks from specific pests and diseases and agree priorities for action. It will take account of all the potential pathways of entry and establishment that our globalised world presents. Alongside this, new procedures for preparedness and contingency planning will be developed to ensure we can predict, monitor and control the spread of pests and pathogens. This will help ensure the UK is ready to deal effectively with future incursions of diseases into this country and is also better able to respond to those that are already established.
Proposals for a new EU regime for plant health were published on 6 May and provide us with a timely opportunity to strengthen biosecurity across Europe and help protect the UK from pests from around the world. The principles set out in the taskforce’s report will inform our response to those proposals and I will negotiate vigorously to ensure that the new system provides stronger protection for the UK from plant pests and diseases.
Government alone cannot make the radical changes needed to protect our trees and plants from disease. As we implement the recommendations of the taskforce, we will engage and involve industry, environmental groups and the general public who all have a role to play in helping us to protect our trees and plants from disease. The Government will respond more fully to the work of the taskforce before the summer recess once it has had a chance to discuss the recommendations with stakeholders, at which point I will provide a further update to this House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
2. What progress he has made on opening up new markets to British producers.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Mr Speaker, good morning.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to work with UK Trade & Investment and industry to promote exports and address market access barriers. We have opened the pork markets in China and Australia, expanded the beef market to Hong Kong, and opened poultry, beef and lamb markets in Russia. We continue to work hard to open and maintain markets for UK goods. We also champion British food at the world’s key trade events.
Nick de Bois
Good morning, Mr Speaker.
I would like to press the Secretary of State, if I may. Given the continuing emerging strength of the BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—countries, what scope is there for British products in that market?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to spot the growth in these markets. Last year, our exports to China grew by 6%, our exports to India by 7% and our exports to the USA by 9%, and only last week the Prime Minister was in Russia talking to President Putin about increasing our exports there. At the moment, the BRIC economies represent only 3% of our total export market, but there are massive opportunities to expand further.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
16. Happy Thursday, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the British food producers industry makes a significant contribution to the UK economy? What impact would it have on that industry, were the UK to leave the EU?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is right to spot the importance of food production. It is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, and we would like to see exports expanded into Europe and the BRIC countries, as I have just said.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Opposition were pleased to see the Prime Minister in the USA this week negotiating a trade deal on behalf of the EU to open up that new export market to the British food industry. I was disappointed to note the Secretary of State’s failure to support his Government’s Queen’s Speech in its entirety last night. Does he agree with his Prime Minister and President Obama that the UK is better off in the EU? Yes or no?
Mr Paterson
I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that we would like to increase our exports to the EU and around the world, and that is why he was doing sterling stuff in Russia. I entirely endorse his policy, which is that we should renegotiate and then put the proposed settlement to the British people. The question for the hon. Lady is whether her wishy-washy Wally of a shadow leader will give the British people a choice.
Mary Creagh
I am not sure where we stand on those words. I always play the ball, not the man, Mr Speaker. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State is a little rattled.
At a CBI dinner last night, Roger Carr, its president, said that Britain needed to be in the EU in order to build our export base. Membership of the EU gives us access to a domestic market of 500 million people. Our export trade deals are negotiated through the EU. Nearly three quarters of our food exports go to our European neighbours. Once more, will the Secretary of State explain how Britain’s leaving the UK would help jobs, exports and growth in the British food industry?
Mr Paterson
We are talking about exports. We want to export to Europe, but yesterday’s results for the French economy, led by her leader’s close ally, show that unemployment there has rocketed to 10.6%. In such circumstances, it is hard to sell and increase our exports to the eurozone. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) is on exactly the right lines in looking at the BRIC countries. We want to export more to Europe, but we also want to export to expanding parts of the world, such as the BRIC countries.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
3. If he will consider banning live animal exports from British ports; and if he will make a statement.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to improve the horse passport system.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Government remain committed to strengthening the horse passport system. I met members of the Equine Sector Council for Health and Welfare’s strategy steering committee to discuss this and other issues on 21 February. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley will be meeting them again next week to discuss these matters further.
Caroline Nokes
A single horse passport-issuing organisation could improve traceability and bring greater rigour to the system. What transitional arrangements is my right hon. Friend planning for the more than 1 million horses in this country that already have passports and that are far more likely to end up at slaughterhouses than next year’s foals?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend speaks with real authority on this matter, having been chief executive of the National Pony Society before entering the House. That is one of the 75 bodies that issues horse passports. She makes the very sensible point that more than 1 million passports have already been issued. We are working with the European Commission, which has sensibly suggested that we move to a single database, and we will obviously work closely with the passport-issuing organisations as we work out the transition to the new system.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
On the question of having a single process across Europe for dealing with horse passport fraud, does the Secretary of State believe that it would be harder or easier to tackle such fraud if we left the European Union?
Mr Paterson
We are discussing this matter immediately with the European Commission, which has put forward the sensible proposal that member states should have a central database. The issue might be subject to renegotiation at a later stage, at which point I would love to hear the hon. Gentleman’s opinion on whether he would push his party leader to back us in giving the British people a choice on the renegotiated settlement.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Everybody agrees that there must be reform and improvement of the horse passporting system, but under the current system there is a derogation for native breeds such as Welsh mountain ponies and Exmoor ponies. Without that derogation, it would become almost financially impossible for people to continue to keep those breeds. Will the Secretary of State consider keeping the derogation so that we can continue to see those wonderful ponies on our wild hills and mountains?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right to say that a number of breeds are currently excluded. We will have to work this out as we discuss the new system, but I also hope that he will see the merits of having a centralised database, which we will work through with the passport-issuing authorities.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Bore da i chi, Mr Speaker—good morning to you.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has become infamous for U-turns, but now our Eurosceptic Secretary of State has been forced into making an embarrassing EU-turn as a result of the horsemeat scandal. He scrapped the national equine database last year, right in the middle of a tendering process, to save £200,000. Now the European Commission has told him to re-establish a central equine database. How much will it cost to set it up again?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We called a meeting with senior members of the equine sector before we had discussions with the Commission, and we all agreed that the system we inherited from his Government is a mess and badly needs to be improved. He exaggerates the importance of the national equine database as he left it, because it did not contain food chain information. We will work closely with the industry. We have seen success with the dog industry contributing to the microchipping programme, and we will work with the equine industry to see how it can help to build the new database.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is there any scope in these proposals to help to combat the growing problem of fly grazing? Farmers and landowners in my constituency are intimidated by Gypsy and Traveller groups who let their horses graze on their land, when the only route open to them is civil prosecution.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I discussed with senior representatives of the horse industry at the Royal Windsor horse show on Saturday. There is a real problem with fly grazing, but we are taking measures forward in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill which I hope will lead to a reduction of the problem.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the forthcoming legislation on dangerous dogs.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking on flood insurance.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
We are at an advanced stage in negotiations with insurers towards producing a successor to the statement of principles. Today, the Association of British Insurers has written to say that insurers will continue to abide by the current agreement for a month beyond the end of June to allow further time for the outstanding issues to be concluded. I am placing a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. We are aiming to conclude negotiations as soon as possible to ensure that households can continue to access affordable flood insurance.
Jessica Morden
Home owners in flood-risk communities are becoming increasingly anxious about this Government’s failure to get a deal on flood insurance. Two hundred thousand properties in flood-risk areas face the prospect of either higher premiums or not getting insured at all. Extending the talks is fine, but when are we going to see a deal on this issue?
Mr Paterson
The current arrangements are not guaranteed to hold premiums down. We are seeking an arrangement that will last well into the future, will deliver affordability and comprehensiveness, and will not impose a huge burden on the taxpayer. The hon. Lady may wish to pop into the Library, or, if she comes to see me later, I will give her a copy of the letter from the ABI. She will see that the tone of the letter demonstrates that we are very close to an agreement, although there are still some important issues to be resolved.
Mr Bradshaw
A one-month extension is simply not good enough. The Government have had three years in which to sort out the problem, and, in the meantime, householders and businesses in Exeter and throughout the south-west face huge hikes in their premiums because of the uncertainty. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor understand that no country in the world has a free market in flood insurance, and that there will have to be some sort of underwriting if there is to be a deal?
Mr Paterson
Having seen the floods in Exeter, I know that this is a key issue there. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the new schemes, which will be of great benefit to many thousands of his constituents. I cannot negotiate with him on the Floor of the House, but we are fully aware that a great many people are vulnerable to increases in premiums, and we view this as a real priority. I think that the fact that the ABI has told us that only one month is needed for us to conclude our important discussions shows how close we are to an agreement.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the news about the ABI, but can my right hon. Friend reassure us that enough time is available for the introduction of the legislation that will be required to replace the statement of principles, given the time frame involved? Can he also reassure us that it will cover home contents insurance for those who live in rented accommodation that is flooded?
Mr Paterson
As my hon. Friend—who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—is aware, we will be presenting a water Bill in the summer, and we shall have an opportunity to include clauses that will lead to the legislation that is required. We are convinced that, whatever happens, there will have to be some form of legislation to ensure that the arrangement is comprehensive. The detail to which my hon. Friend refers will be dealt with in the negotiations.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
17. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his Ministers for the hard work they have been doing. Does the Secretary of State share my frustration over the fact that it seems to be the ABI and the insurance industry—one of our great successes in this country— that are exerting the pressure, and holding out for some sort of subsidy from the taxpayer in order to secure an agreement?
Mr Paterson
Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency during the floods, I am fully aware of the importance of the issue to her constituents, but it is a complex issue. We are trying to find a long-term solution, and to sort out the conundrum of affordability, comprehensiveness, and not imposing a long-term burden on the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the ABI for the constructive manner in which it has engaged in the regular meetings and discussions that have taken place. We are not quite there yet, but I hope to be able to come to the House soon to announce a resolution of the problems.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
14. Has the Secretary of State seen a report, published this week, which suggests that rather than there being a once-in-a-thousand years chance of the Thames barrier being overwhelmed by rising sea levels, the statistic could be once in a hundred years or even once in 10 years? What are the implications of that for insurance costs in London?
Mr Paterson
We have begun preliminary investigations of the prospects of long-term flooding. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a possibility of major construction projects which may help.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Residents of Pagham and Middleton-on-Sea, in my constituency, greatly valued the visit by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), on 29 April. Surface water flooding was a huge problem in my constituency on 10 June last year, and it is now becoming clear that silt build-up in the Pagham and Aldingbourne rifes exacerbated that flooding. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Environment Agency to give greater priority to routine clearing and dredging of the main river water courses that are so important in preventing and mitigating flood damage?
Mr Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should seek an Adjournment on the matter. He might even get it.
Mr Paterson
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. I think that the Environment Agency has a role to play in clearing major waterways, but I am also talking to the agency about speeding up the ability of landowners to look after low-risk waterways, where there is also a problem in rural areas.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been given a welcome breathing space with the month-long extension of the statement of principles negotiated by the Labour Government. That, however, will come as little consolation to the company in Calderdale that is facing an increase in its flood insurance excess from the current level of £500 to a staggering £250,000, putting jobs and the local economy at risk. Does the Secretary of State really believe that that is a price worth paying for his ideological support for a free market in insurance?
Mr Paterson
That is a glorious question, because the hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. He describes the problem with the existing system left because of the incompetence of the Labour Government, who made such a mess for 13 years. We are trying to bring forward a better system that will deliver affordability to some of our most vulnerable citizens. We will deliver; they didn’t.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
12. What steps his Department is taking to promote community orchards.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the health of the UK’s bee population.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Threats to the health of bees are many, and their impacts change from year to year. Our National Bee Unit’s bee health inspectors report a mixed picture. While the foulbrood diseases are at historically low levels and exotic pests remain absent, the varroa mite is still a major concern. NBU inspectors are assessing what impact almost 12 months of poor weather is having on our bees and will report later in the year.
Mr Nuttall
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Given the importance of bees to our environment—and, of course, our orchards—what more can his Department do to make it easier for people to take up beekeeping and encourage a new generation of beekeepers in this country?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the supreme importance of encouraging the growth of pollinators all round, and our healthy bees plan provides £1.3 million to fund the NBU, with its inspection, training and diagnostic services, which encourage people to take up beekeeping.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, the predicament of the bees is just as critical as it is in England. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and specifically the Minister responsible for this area, Michelle O’Neill, to ensure that the United Kingdom strategy is put in place across the whole of the United Kingdom, including England and the regions?
Mr Paterson
This issue is devolved, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I will be having a meeting with the devolved Ministers very shortly, and bees and pollination will obviously be one of the issues we will discuss.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Speaking as a beekeeper myself, is the Secretary of State aware of the extreme disappointment of the British Beekeepers Association, of which I am a member, at the recent EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides and the very grave concern that as a result farmers will go back to older, and more damaging, insecticides and that the health of Britain’s bees could therefore inadvertently be more at risk now than before the ban was introduced?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend speaks with real authority on this, so what he says is worrying. We argued exactly that case: that there should not be a precipitate ban until proper analysis has been done of the alternatives. There may be legally licensed alternatives, such as pyrethroids or organophosphates, but they are not nice, and we were not convinced that the case against neonicotinoids had been made following the analysis of our field trials. We were supported by eight member states—important ones such as Hungary, with 2 million hectares producing 20,000 tonnes of honey—but, sadly, we were outvoted and the Commission has decided to bring in a two-year ban.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
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. In recent weeks, we have helped farmers respond to the pressures created by the recent severe weather, not only through immediate support, but by bringing together the banks, farming charities and industry to co-ordinate farmers’ short-term access to finance and build the long-term resilience of their businesses. As we seek to enhance rather than merely protect our natural environment, we are exploring the potential for biodiversity offsetting, so that we can improve our cherished habitats and wildlife, while enabling the rural economy to prosper.
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In Medway this summer, following a successful bid to the central Government weekly collection support scheme, recycling will be collected weekly. What action are the Government taking to enable more local authorities to increase their recycling rates?
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The UK is on track to meet its 50% household waste recycling target. Decisions on collection regimes are for local councils to make, taking into account local circumstances, including local logistics, the characteristics of the area and the service that local people want. The Government are encouraging a number of councils to run incentive schemes for various kinds of recycling collection, through the reward and recognition scheme and the weekly collection support scheme. The Government have also introduced higher packaging recycling targets for business, which will help to increase household recycling rates.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T3. A draft Bill on banning wild animals in circuses was published by DEFRA in April but did not feature in the Queen’s Speech. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that Bill will be introduced in this House in this Session or not?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Almost a year ago, the then Secretary of State told me that a deal on flood insurance was imminent. Is not the real villain of the piece here the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has blocked a deal being reached? Is this not another example of a shambolic Government, who have had three years to sort this matter out and now have to get a further month’s extension, with there still being no guarantee that a deal will be in place after that extra month?
Mr Paterson
That is complete nonsense. The Chief Secretary and senior Ministers are all working closely together on this issue. I am sorry that we may have nearly shot the Labour party’s fox. We are working closely with the Association of British Insurers and we will deliver a good deal.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T4. What is my right hon. Friend doing to make sure that the new single farm payment forms are as short as possible?
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
T7. Is the Minister aware of any international examples of disease control that could be applicable in the bid to control bovine TB in the UK?
Mr Paterson
In opposition, I visited the USA; I went to Michigan. Last month, I went to Australia and New Zealand and I shall shortly be visiting the Republic of Ireland. What they all have in common, in getting rid of this horrible disease, which is a zoonosis, is that they bear down on disease in cattle and they bear down on disease where there is a reservoir in wildlife. That is exactly what we intend to do.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
In recent days, it has emerged that burgers served in Leicester schools that were classified as halal contained pork. There have been similar examples elsewhere in the country. Will the Secretary of State undertake to have urgent discussions with the Food Standards Agency to ensure that halal food is indeed halal food?
Agriculture and Fisheries Council (Agenda)
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years 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 Monday 13 and Tuesday 14 May in Brussels. I will be representing the UK on the agriculture items while my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for natural environment, water and rural affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will cover fisheries. Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA may also attend.
Monday morning will be dedicated to agriculture and I expect the presidency to report back to the Council progress on the CAP reform package currently being discussed in trilogue. Monday afternoon and Tuesday will concentrate on the CFP reform package. There are two any other business points: on the global oceans action summit from the Dutch delegation and a UK item on the ongoing dispute regarding north-east Atlantic mackerel.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(11 years 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 attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 22 April in Luxembourg. I was accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for natural environment, water and rural affairs, who represented the UK on fisheries issues. Alun Davies AM and Richard Lochhead MSP also attended.
The substantive business of the Agriculture Council began with the presidency reporting back on the first six trilogue meetings with the European Parliament. Some technical issues had been resolved, and some major political aspects identified. A further 28 meetings were scheduled before the end of June to negotiate on the major political issues plus parallel technical meetings too. The aim is to reach agreement on the full package at the June Agriculture Council. The major political issues would be resolved then, but the presidency called for flexibility from member states as it will be necessary to update the negotiating mandate over the coming weeks.
The Commission introduced a proposal for transitional measures for the CAP in 2014. These roll over the majority of existing CAP rules for direct payments and rural development, but use the budgetary figures for the multiannual financial framework agreed by the European Council in February. The presidency explained that the Parliament planned to give its opinion on the transitional measures in July and that trilogues to agree the dossier would be held in the autumn.
Fisheries
The presidency reported on the trilogues with the European Parliament on the basic regulation of the common fisheries policy reform. Discussions had been constructive, but there was still no agreement on a number of key political issues, including the approach to be taken to the definition of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the detail of the discard ban, regionalisation and fleet capacity. The presidency received support for its planned approach from member states and concluded that they now had support to intensify the work of the trilogues. The aim would be to agree a revised Council mandate for the negotiations in COREPER, with further discussion at the May Fisheries Council.
Common organisation of the markets in the fishery and aquaculture products—state of play
The presidency reported on progress in the first two trilogues. Outstanding issues were in relation to mandatory consumer information and delegated and implementing acts. There would be a third trilogue, with any outstanding issues to be settled in COREPER. The presidency was optimistic that outstanding issues can be resolved ahead of May Council.
Action plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears presentation by the Commission.
The Commission presented its plan of action, designed to improve the situation for a number of species threatened with extinction by reducing incidental catches to the lowest possible level. They were proposing a bottom-up, regionalised approach with responsibility given to member states and stakeholders. The Netherlands and the UK welcomed the plan. The UK highlighted serious concerns about by-catches of seabirds and argued that the plan gave the EU the opportunity to be recognised as a world leader in responding to this problem. Other member states gave a more guarded response.
AOB: state of play of fisheries protocols: Morocco and Mauritania
Spain introduced the AOB point they had raised, pressed for information on the prospects of a new fishing protocol with Morocco and for further improvements to the protocol with Mauritania. The Commission said they had worked intensively to progress the protocol with Morocco, including at ministerial level. On Mauritania the Commission would continue to seek sustainable and viable improvements to the protocol. They confirmed that if the protocol remained underused then they would make use of the break clause in order to protect the interest of taxpayers.