Driven Grouse Shooting

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 125003 and 164851 relating to driven grouse shooting.

It is a joy and great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies. I thank those who initiated the two e-petitions and all those who signed them, because they have provided us with the opportunity to debate driven grouse shooting today. As with all issues regarding animals, this one is highly emotive and draws out a lot of feeling. One of the things I have been surprised about since being elected is that I get far more emails about animals—be they bees, badgers, foxes, dogs, cats or now grouse—than I do about any issues relating to the welfare of people. Something in our national make-up certainly seems to be drawn out when it comes to animals.

The e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting has received more than 120,000 signatures. The petition states:

“Grouse shooting for ‘sport’ depends on intensive habitat management which increases flood risk and greenhouse gas emissions,”

and kills many mammals, such as

“Foxes, Stoats, Mountain Hares…and…protected birds…including Hen Harriers.”

The petition goes on to describe driven grouse shooting as “canned hunting”, which is

“economically, ecologically and socially unnecessary.”

The other e-petition is in favour of protecting grouse moors and grouse shooting. It states:

“Grouse moors…are an integral part of moorland management both for the grouse and other…wildlife such as lapwing and curlew”.

According to the petition, grouse shooting helps to support local businesses, jobs and rural areas.

I have a keen interest in and concern for our traditional rural way of life, but I have never participated in grouse shooting and, as far as I am aware, I have no links or connections to anyone who has, although I will admit to eating a few grouse on occasion—I found them very tasty. I am opening this debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but since the petition was brought before the Committee it has been interesting to learn about the issues and listen to views from both sides. The Committee has received numerous written submissions and held an oral evidence session with representatives of those who wish to ban or control grouse shooting and those who support it.

Grouse shooting has existed in the UK for more than 160 years. It is governed by parliamentary legislation and European Union directives, and it is a devolved matter for the devolved regions of the UK. Red grouse are wild game birds that live in the uplands of the UK. In 2009, there were an estimated 230,000 pairs in the UK.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am hesitant to interrupt such a superb speech, but my hon. Friend mentioned that one of the petitions used the word “canned”, which is surely extremely ignorant and misleading, because the birds are completely wild. Does he agree that there is no logic whatever in saying that driven grouse shooting should be somehow controlled, but that other forms of grouse shooting should not be? There is no logic there, because we are talking about a wild bird, not one that can be reared.

[Steve Double]

I agree very much with both my hon. Friend’s points.

Red grouse are not found anywhere in the UK but uplands. They live in heather moorland and heather forms the staple part of their diet. Seventy-five per cent of global heather moorland is located in the UK, so in global terms heather moorland is rarer than the rain forest. Heather moorland comprises about 7% of the UK’s land mass, or some 6,500 square miles.

Grouse shooting comes in two forms: walked-up shooting, which involves groups of shooters who walk around a predetermined area and drive the grouse from the ground, and driven grouse shooting, which involves a group of beaters who scare the grouse from the ground towards a line of shooters. One of the petitions calls for a ban on driven grouse shooting, but as my hon. Friend said, it seems slightly illogical to wish to ban only one form of grouse shooting.

Clearly there are informed and strongly held views that grouse shooting is detrimental to our environment and wildlife. Concerns have been expressed about how the way in which the moors are managed contributes to flooding and is responsible for the destruction of other wildlife, including some of our national birds of prey in particular. I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I will be unable to go into all the detail of the issues raised in the time available to me in opening, but I hope others will pick up on the other points. I will deal with what I see as the main issues.

One of the biggest questions, as I see it, is whether the management of grouse moors is good or bad for our environment. First, we have to look at moorland management and whether the moors must necessarily be managed. Moorland looks wild, but in fact it is a carefully managed environment. It is thanks to grouse shooting that over the past 30 years grouse moor managers in England have been responsible for the regeneration of more than 217,000 acres of heather moorland. The petition to ban mentions that such moorland is an important part of the ecosystem and local habitats, so one of the big questions to be asked is, if we were to ban grouse shooting, how would that important habitat otherwise be managed?

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the question is not just how this moorland would be managed were grouse shooting to be banned, but whether it would exist at all or instead be given over to belts of conifers or grazed farmland? Surely the existence of the moorland is a reflection of grouse moor management over generations.

[Steve Double]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which I will develop later in my speech, and I agree with him completely.

The management of the moorland for grouse provides the manpower to tackle invasive plants such as bracken and ragwort, along with saplings and shrubs of other species, and keeps the heather moorland clear. That level of intervention would not be viable without the grouse shooting industry. In England, grouse moor owners spend approximately £50 million every year on moorland management; in Scotland, the figure is more than £30 million. If grouse shooting were banned, where would the funds to manage the land come from?

Another concern expressed by those who wish to ban grouse shooting is that it causes flooding. I understand the logic of their argument: grouse moor management can increase the risk of flooding, because burning reduces the ability of the moor to absorb rainfall and run-off must therefore increase, leading to flooding further downstream. I suggest, however, that that is too simple a conclusion and that the issue is far more complex. Indeed, peatland restoration is known to help to slow the rate of water run-off. Ending moorland management as a result of banning grouse shooting might actually make flooding worse and more likely to happen. I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that when she responds to the debate, because the issue is of great concern to those who live near such moors.

Another point worth making is that many areas of heather moorland are protected in their current state by their status as SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest. If the tens of millions of pounds of income from grouse shooting were to be lost, how would those protected landscapes be maintained in their current state without the cost falling on the taxpayer, something I simply could not support?

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. It seems to me that the opponents of shooting grouse want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because if we destroy grouse shooting, the raptors would lose their food source, local jobs would be lost and, as my hon. Friend is saying, the environment would be the poorer. The argument is not about conservation, but about destruction of the countryside.

[Steve Double]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Again, I agree with the points he makes.

Another argument put forward by those who wish to ban grouse shooting is that it is damaging to wildlife. The petition to ban grouse shooting states that it causes the deaths of predators such as foxes, stoats and hen harriers. The lawful control of predators is essential to protect grouse, which are ground-nesting birds. That includes the black grouse, which is one of the most endangered species in the UK. Peer-reviewed research by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust shows that as the population of black grouse has declined, they have retreated to managed moorland areas, which now account for 96% of the black grouse population. Predator control also protects other valuable species, such as the lapwing, skylark, curlew, grey partridge and merlin, whose numbers have doubled on grouse moors in the last 20 years.

All wild bird species are protected under law, to varying degrees. The UK has some of the most robust wildlife and animal legislation in the world. It is a criminal offence to shoot, kill or tamper with birds of prey such as the hen harrier—and their nests—without a licence.

In 1999, the joint raptor study on Langholm moor measured the impact of hen harriers breeding on grouse moorland. When grouse management of that heather moorland stopped, there was a marked decline in red grouse, skylarks, curlews, golden plovers and hen harriers. The evidence is clear that birds of prey, including hen harriers, are better off on managed heather moorland. Hen harriers need gamekeepers as much as grouse do. However, gamekeepers on grouse moors are often accused of persecuting birds of prey. As one person who gave evidence to the Committee said, grouse shooting

“is underpinned by wildlife crime.”

There are clearly genuine concerns about the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. I want to make it clear that I believe that those who flout the law do the shooting community no favours whatever. There is no justification for illegal activity. However, I suggest that the illegal activity of a few is no justification for a complete ban—otherwise, we would have outlawed driving a long time ago—but instead a case for more effective enforcement of our current laws.

The key argument on this subject is the economic one. We must always keep in mind when addressing issues of this nature that although many of the key arguments are to do with the environment, landscapes and wildlife, they are also about people and the livelihoods and sustainability of our rural communities. The Moorland Association and Countryside Alliance note that in many cases grouse shooting not only supports but is a lifeline for rural areas of the UK that are cut off from employment streams that other parts of the country enjoy.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

We often hear that grouse moors are sustainable because they receive funds under the basic payment scheme, but is it not the case that grouse shooting is not an agricultural activity and is therefore not eligible for such funds?

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will address at the end of my speech. Leaving the EU may give us an opportunity to divert some money to better management of our moorland.

In Scotland alone, grouse shooting supports thousands of jobs that are worth £7 million a year in wages and contributes £32 million to the economy. It is estimated that it supports more than 4,000 full-time equivalent jobs in some of the poorest and most rural communities in the UK. Banning grouse shooting would be an epic gamble with our rural economy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Petitions Committee is quite new, but I would have thought that someone opening a debate on a petition on behalf of that Committee ought at least to look at both sides of the argument and not present such a biased argument against the petition. More than 120,000 people signed the petition to ban grouse shooting, and they want a debate that sets out both sides of the argument. The hon. Gentleman is failing them miserably.

[Steve Double]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think I have presented arguments on both sides, and I have not yet finished my speech, so perhaps she should wait until I have before jumping to a conclusion.

Local post offices, pubs, corner shops and primary schools would be at risk if grouse shooting were banned. Although it is correctly argued that many of the jobs linked to grouse shooting are seasonal, it takes place outside the main summer months and therefore fills a gap in local employment by employing people at a different time from other seasonal jobs.

It is clear that part of the opposition to grouse shooting is down to the perception that it is elitist. We have often heard the term “shooting for fun” used in a derogatory manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. Grouse shooting brings rural communities together in areas that struggle with social isolation and a lack of employment. Many of those who work on grouse shoots are students, school leavers or retirees looking to supplement their income. Those people are not rich toffs; they are ordinary people who rely on the additional income that the work brings them. Those who call for a ban have failed to present any credible alternative to that. No case has been made for where the tens of millions of pounds that are spent on the management of the land would come from. There seems to be a romantic view that if the land is left to nature, it will somehow become a natural paradise full of wildlife and people will pay to view it, yet no evidence has been presented to support that notion.

Many of those who support the movement against grouse shooting are also against all other countryside sports. If those people had their way, after grouse shooting was banned, other forms of shooting would be up for bans. I have even heard mention of fishing being on the radar for a ban one day. Many communities across rural Britain rely on grouse shooting. What do those who support a ban want grouse shooting to be replaced with? Who will employ the gamekeepers, the beaters and the land managers? Following the cessation of trips by tourists and visitors to those local communities, who will visit the pubs and shops and spend money in local businesses? The people who support a ban have no answers to those questions. For them, the end justifies the means. They see the countryside as a theme park or museum—something to be watched and visited. They do not realise that it needs constant management. The management of our countryside relies on viable, sustainable communities. People need to be able to live and make a living in the countryside.

It should be noted that, interestingly, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds does not support a ban. Instead, it advocates some form of licensing of grouse shooting. However, little detail has been presented about precisely how that would work or what value it would add, other than another layer of bureaucracy.

I do not support a ban on shooting—our current laws and regulations provide the right balance between protecting wildlife and the environment and supporting our rural communities—but that does not mean that nothing needs to be done. We should certainly take notice of some of the issues raised by the petition to ban and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of many of those who signed the petition. I believe that the Government can do more to address the underlying concerns that the petition expresses. Specifically, will the Minister address the concerns about flooding and the link to heather burning? What steps can be taken to address those concerns? What are the Government doing to enforce the law on protecting wildlife, especially birds of prey, and what more can be done to prosecute those who flout the law? What opportunities does she believe leaving the EU may bring for using agricultural subsidies to encourage land management, which would increase the protection and diversity of our moorlands?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing moral about knowingly making a decision that will put hundreds of people in some of the poorest parts of our country out of work?

[Nigel Adams]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him again on introducing this petition today. I certainly would not want any further excessive burdens to be placed on the approximately 450 estates that offer grouse shooting.

Grouse moor management is conducted in accordance with clear regulations contained within conservation designations, such as sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation. That has been shown to be highly effective, with SSSIs that are also grouse moors demonstrating a massive improvement in condition in the last decade. An overwhelming majority are now in either “good” or “recovering” condition, whereas only approximately a third were previously.

The legal predator control and habitat management undertaken by managers of grouse moors is supported by Natural England because these have proven to provide sanctuary and habitat for increased populations of endangered wading bird species, including lapwings, curlew, and other red-listed species, including the red grouse, which is unique to the British Isles.

Additionally, there is little evidence to show that predator species are damaged by the responsible management of grouse moor estates. In fact, studies show that they benefit: breeding merlin pairs were four times as high in keepered moorland than elsewhere, and the control of predators was shown to reduce nest predation, increasing the population of hen harriers and other native birds of prey. When keepering stopped, hen harrier populations did not increase. In fact, they declined alongside grouse populations, because crow and fox populations took over. This petition may be well intentioned, but if its recommendations were implemented, it would end up shooting the uplands in the foot.

Grouse moor managers actively restore peatland and well-maintained peatland helps to reduce flood risk, as we have heard. Those are essential environmental maintenance tasks that the Government do not have to fund, yet they produce huge public benefits—a virtually free service is conducted by grouse moor managers. Grouse moor owners in England alone spend approximately £52.5 million every year on moorland management, 90% of which is private investment. Those tasks would have to be taken up and funded by the public purse or we would face declining biodiversity, increased flood risk and damage to a rare type of habitat on the basis of neglect.

Let me come to those who really matter in this: the local community, many of whom benefit from and enjoy grouse shooting and enjoy living near picturesque, well-maintained heather moorland. It gathers people of all ages together to enjoy the camaraderie of a day’s grouse shooting. Driven grouse shooting brings the rural community together in areas that struggle with social isolation and low levels of employment. It keeps a cultural tradition thriving. Among those who have newly taken up the profession, there are people whose families have been grouse shooting, farming and keeping for centuries.

I will try to put this gently, but I feel that there is a bit of misplaced or inverted snobbery in the petition to ban this practice. There is a sense of knee-jerk opposition without a full understanding of the facts. There is an impression, for example, that grouse shooting involves a bunch of tweed-clad toffs trampling the countryside and killing for fun, but that is a huge misconception. I suspect that those who want to see driven grouse shooting banned, some of whom are given a very regular platform by the BBC to espouse their views, are keen to propagate that image, alongside their dodgy science.

[Mr David Nuttall in the Chair]

The industry is supported primarily by those who have spent their lives living in and working hard for the countryside. All sides—the rural community, the shooters and the gamekeepers—know that their environment and occupation cannot continue unless they maintain good relations with one another and conserve the countryside. The actual business of conservation requires people to get their hands very literally dirty, not simply sign a petition from the comfort of their home.

In the debate, there is an element of seizing upon a convenient, if fallacious, environmental objection as a straw man for some people’s misguided opposition to shooting when, in fact, most country sports contribute massively to conservation and animal welfare. I encourage anyone who is interested to visit a grouse moor and speak with the passionate, hands-on and knowledgeable gamekeepers before leaping to criticise, based solely on a couple of deeply unrepresentative bad examples.

Shot game tends to be of an incredibly high quality and raised to high welfare standards, and is often organic. Almost all game that is shot on such estates, including grouse, gets eaten. A lot of people object to seeing a shooting party carrying home a bird to pluck and cook, but those same people sometimes buy at their local supermarket, without a second thought, eggs and chicken raised in truly deplorable conditions. We must not pander to squeamishness about where food comes from, especially when those ideas are based on uninformed prejudices. Therefore, I am fully in support of the alternative petition to support the countryside and driven grouse shooting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It is good to see a lively debate with strongly held views. Everyone spoke up on behalf of our rural communities, our environment and the diversity of our wildlife, so it has been a very good debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 125003 and 164851 relating to driven grouse shooting.

South-west Agriculture and Fishing

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this debate. Like him, I see Brexit as a great bonus for farming and fishing in the south-west. It is a win-win—but so it should be, because we have significant investment in agriculture and fishing in the south-west. Some 72% of Devon’s land is farmed, and £2.7 billion of turnover in the south-west is due to agriculture. A third of all dairy and beef, and a fifth of all sheep and lambs are also from the south-west. Whatever happens post-Brexit will make a big difference for us in the south-west.

I entirely endorse the comments made about the CAP by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). It simply did not work, and it rewarded people in the wrong way. I am not suggesting that we should in any way remove its environmental role. We should continue that, but we should make it relevant and appropriate while ensuring that we encourage production. Many farmers I speak to say that there is absolutely no incentive to produce more. That cannot be right. We also have to get the balance right between the large landowner and the farmer with a small landmass to farm who has been short-changed against the big landowners in all sorts of different ways, in part because across Europe the farmers tend to farm across much larger tracts of land, and what works for them does not necessarily work for us.

Going forward, we certainly need to see better, targeted support that is more appropriate to the nature of our agricultural community, which is not the same as that of France and Germany. We also need to ensure that the regulations are properly scrutinised, because at the moment we have rules about the size of gates, the height of hedges and how much space is left between the hedge and crop, and much of that we do not need. There are similar issues. While we clearly want to ensure that animal welfare standards are at their highest, my farmers tell me that much of the red tape around what we need to do are unnecessary and so easy to get around that, frankly, they are rather pointless.

I totally agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) about marketing and labelling, because I think very few people really understand what that tractor means. We could get a proper scheme going, with proper support to encourage supermarkets and others to really promote British, and we could have legislation that made it clear where the word “British” or “produced” can and cannot be used, because it is unclear and the European rules are different from those we have here.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that leaving the EU provides an opportunity for the UK to be more self-sufficient in food? Currently we are at just over 60%. We have a great opportunity for UK farmers to sell more of their products in the UK and for us to be less reliant on imports.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I totally agree. There is a huge appetite to buy local; it is just that people do not know how to do that. Those of us who live in rural communities are privileged in a way, because we have all sorts of farm shops and we all know about them, but those who live in the cities do not get the same opportunity, other than when there is a local market or whatever. There is certainly an issue in trying to bring the best of rural England to the cities and other parts of the country so that they can understand and see the benefits—certainly in taste—that we can bring them.

There are other things we could do, such as introducing a crop insurance scheme that looks at the challenges farmers face when over a year we have bad weather and a crop fails. If we did that, we could have checks and balances to help our farmers. However, we need something that really works and not something that creates a milk mountain—that would be the wrong way forward. Of course, we need to invest in science, because if we are to move forward and increase our market share and footprint, we need investment in research to go ahead.

With regard to the fishermen, I entirely support all that my Cornish colleagues have said. The quota system does not work. I am not suggesting that we should cut off anyone from fishing in our waters, but it needs to be fairer, because at the moment the French quota for plaice is twice as big as ours, for Dover sole it is two thirds more and for cod it is five sixths more than ours. That really is not acceptable.

We need a fair quota system. We need also sustainable fishing—at the moment that is largely ignored in large parts of Europe—and to deal once and for all with the discard problem, because although the EU has talked about that for many years, we still have not resolved it. There is much to do, and I am absolutely sure that the British Government can put agriculture and fishing first.

Badger Culling/Bovine TB

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Three years ago I had the honour of being the mayor of my home town of St Austell, and one evening I went to visit the local sea cadets. I will never forget that memorable evening, because at the end of the evening, as I usually did, I asked the young people what they would like to see in our town that would make it a better place. I got all the usual answers—better shops, better leisure facilities, a skateboard park—and then one young man standing in front of me, who was about 12 years old, leant forward and said, “A badger cull.” I figured out very quickly that he was clearly a farmer’s son.

The point that I want to make is that this debate is about people; it is about the livelihood and wellbeing of beef and dairy farmers in this country. We must never lose sight of the fact that as we debate Britain’s biggest rodent, we are actually talking about the livelihoods of our farmers. Let us be clear that every time cattle are tested, our dairy farmers go through anguish. They stand there watching the test take place, not knowing whether this time it is going to be positive, and then many of them have to watch as their life’s work is destroyed as a result of a positive test. We must never lose sight of the fact that at the heart of this debate is our local farming community. I have spoken to many beef and dairy farmers in my constituency, and every one of them has told me that they are convinced we need to control the badger population to eradicate this disease.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Speaking as a farmer’s daughter, I understand how devastating TB can be in a cattle herd, but I also absolutely despise the shooting and culling of badgers. Will the hon. Gentleman identify the scientific evidence that supports badger culling?

[Steve Double]

I believe that there is a great deal of evidence from other nations that have eradicated TB, where part of the programme of eradication has been the control of wildlife that carries the disease. There is evidence from around the world that supports that view. Our beef and dairy farmers have a very clear view, and I have learned over the years to listen to those most closely associated with an issue when forming an opinion.

Let us be clear: controlling the badger population will not, in and of itself, be the silver bullet that eradicates this disease, but I am convinced that it has to be part of a comprehensive programme, including vaccination and controls on movement where appropriate, if we are to move towards doing so. I will continue to support our farming community, the Minister, who has great experience of farming in his own right, and the Government on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential contribution of deep geothermal as a source of renewable energy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), the new Home Secretary, on her appointment, and also of course our new Prime Minister, the former Home Secretary? I wish them both great success. I also welcome the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to his place; I think this is the first time we have had an exchange over the Dispatch Box. I wish the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) very good luck in their futures, too; I have enjoyed our exchanges.

Owing to our geology, deep geothermal power is likely to make a small contribution to electricity supply. However, Cornwall is one area where the technology can work and I am pleased that this is part of the devolution deal for Cornwall. Deep geothermal heat has greater potential and we are supporting its development through the renewable heat incentive and through feasibility studies funded by the heat network delivery unit.

[Steve Double]

I thank the Minister for that response. Deep geothermal has the great benefit of being a baseload energy source that is not reliant on variable weather conditions, and, as the Minister points out, Cornwall is one place where great potential for geothermal lies. As she is aware, a scheme is being developed at the Eden project in my constituency. May I invite her to visit Cornwall to see for herself the huge potential that there is for geothermal development there?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; nothing would please me more than a nice holiday in Cornwall right now. I am very pleased to hear that the EGS Energy and Eden project development is progressing well and, as he knows, it has the potential to produce power for about 4,000 homes and to make a very important contribution to the local community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady—she is exactly right. Energy suppliers must behave properly towards their customers. There are too many complaints and not a good enough service, and that has to change.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

T6. I congratulate my hon. Friend on fielding all the questions over the last hour, and on the manner in which she has conducted herself over the past week. I believe that she has done herself a great deal of credit, and I add my voice to those wishing her well later today. Following the historic vote by the British people to leave the EU, the UK once again has full control over our VAT. One way we could help households across the UK with high energy bills would be to cut VAT on energy. Will the Minister support calls for such a move?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to prove that collective responsibility has once again taken effect, I reassure him that VAT is a matter for the Treasury. I agree about the need to reduce the number of households in fuel poverty, which is why we are consulting on proposals to focus more of the energy company obligation on those most in need. We have laid regulations that will ensure continued support for more than 2 million households through the warm home discount.

Tenant Farming

Steve Double Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I would advise those tenants to speak to the Tenant Farmers Association, which is effective at representing its tenant farmers, as well as to the NFU and other organisations, who also provide effective representation.

I plead the cause of young farmers in particular. It is a big risk for a landowner to take an unproved tenant under 40, who may not have had their foot on the ladder before, on to their farm for a 10-year tenancy of the type that my hon. Friend argued for, but it is vital to encourage younger entrants to come forward. They have bright ideas and they want to progress, but that is a risk. The danger of the course of action that she proposes, with longer-term tenancies, is that innovation and support is stifled because the risk is too great. A 10-year commitment is also a great risk for the tenant, who will have that liability for 10 years.

My hon. Friend is in effect arguing for better representation in negotiations rather than reducing flexibility in the system. I say to the Minister that for tenant farmers in my constituency the real pressure in the system comes from the level of rents and, in particular, what has happened to dairy prices. I certainly saw livestock farmers priced out of the market when milk prices were high because high levels of rent were being asked for relatively small parcels of land, which prevented some getting on to the ladder in the livestock sector. I experienced that in north Wales and there are also high levels of rent in Eddisbury. That, rather than flexibility, is the real issue.

Diversification has risks associated with it, but again a good landlord will want to encourage a positive relationship with their tenant and the tenant will want to have a positive relationship with their landlord. When that works, there can be some really good, productive, experimental diversification programmes.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when there is a positive, constructive relationship between the landlord and tenant, that can work in the long term? My father-in-law has been a tenant farmer with the Duchy of Cornwall for more than 50 years, which has worked well for both parties.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I certainly do agree. We should focus our attention on providing support and encouraging those constructive relationships to go forward rather than on legislating to alter the lengths of tenancies. Quality and support are the two issues, and a good relationship will almost inevitably lead to an extension of tenancy agreements when that suits both parties.

If we constrict the amount of time to a minimum term of 10 years, with relief available only at that time, what happens to someone who wants to renew for another five years? Is that done from the baseline of the tenancy? What happens if someone wants to bring in a partner to farm with them? Does that count as a new tenancy? In my submission, the current system is flexible. It has wrinkles, and I do not pretend that there are not problems, but I urge caution before this place passes more legislation on farm business tenancies.

Food Security

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my Cornish colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), on tabling this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) have said in the debate. In view of the time restraints, I will not repeat everything that has been said that I wholeheartedly agree with; I will pull out a few of the main points that I believe are worth reinforcing.

It is clear, and I am sure we all agree, that food security is increasingly becoming one of the most important issues that the country will face. As we have heard, the increasing population in our country and globally, the rapid growth of the middle classes in developing countries, and world security issues mean that food security for the UK will become very important. Climate change will also increasingly be a factor. I recently visited Kenya and saw for myself the impact that the changing climate is having on food production in that part of the world. When all those things are put together, it is clear that we will not be able to rely as certainly on food imported into the country as we have in recent decades.

That is why I believe it is important for us to do all we can as a country to become as self-sufficient as possible in food production. Various figures are bandied around, but I believe the most reliable is that we currently produce about 65% of the food we need. We need that figure to go up. It is unlikely ever to be 100%, and I am not sure we would ever want it to be, but we certainly need it to move nearer to that.

The food supply chain is a complex matter, but our farmers and, as other hon. Members have been saying, our fishermen are at its very foundation. We need to do all we can to support them. I should probably declare an interest at this point, by saying that I married a farmer’s daughter 30 years ago this year and that at the moment her father, my father-in-law, is still—in his mid-80s—to be found every day in the fields on his farm on the Isles of Scilly; and a great inspiration he is. Our farmers are facing some of the most challenging times that they have faced for many generations. We have already talked about the downward pressure on prices both from supermarkets in the UK and from global markets. The increasing costs and bureaucracy in farming are making it harder than ever for farms to remain viable and sustainable businesses. We need to understand those challenges and do everything we can to give support, and to address them.

Farming is viable in this country only because of the significant subsidies that farmers receive, but I think we need to be clear.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that there was nothing in the EU negotiation about reform of the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy?

[Steve Double]

Absolutely—I agree wholeheartedly. It is a point that I want to come on to. I am very disappointed that there is nothing in the renegotiation in our relationship with the EU on seeking to reform either the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy. I believe that they are things that need to be reformed, and that is one reason why I am quite likely to vote to leave the EU. We need to recover our own powers over those aspects for this country and not to be so reliant on the EU for them.

We also need to be clear that the subsidies paid to our farmers are, in effect, subsidising not farmers but British households. They are there to keep food prices down. We need to kill the myth that somehow farmers are subsidy junkies. They receive those subsidies only because of the downward pressure on prices. Virtually every farmer I know and speak to would say that they would rather have a fair and sustainable price for the food they produce than to be so reliant on subsidies.

In the recent crisis involving milk prices, we saw that the British consumer is willing to pay a bit more when they know that a product is local and the farmer will receive a fairer price for that product. That is particularly true in Cornwall. The Cornish brand for locally produced food is incredibly strong; there is a very strong feeling in Cornwall that people are willing to pay a bit more if they know that something is Cornish and that local farmers are getting a fairer price for it. The Government would do well to push that further. We have already talked about better labelling for locally produced food. The Red Tractor scheme has been mentioned. That is a very good label, but we need to do more to promote such schemes so that the British consumer can know for certain that they are buying local food.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives did not intend the debate to become dominated by the issue of TB, but we cannot avoid the subject. When I go out and speak to local farmers in my constituency and ask them, “What is your No. 1 concern that you would like the Government to do something about?”, the most common response is, “Address the issue of bovine TB.” I congratulate the Government on the steps they have already taken to address the issue, despite strong opposition, but I firmly believe that we need to allow those who live off the land to manage the countryside. They know best, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to press ahead and do everything they can to rid our farms of that awful disease. I can assure him of my full support in any steps he takes to do that. We need to make no bones about it. Again, as we have heard, this is not about just saving a few badgers. Hundreds of cattle are slaughtered every week as a direct or indirect result of TB. We must address the impact that that is having on the sustainability of locally produced food.

To sum up, we need to do everything we can to support British farmers. I know that I do not have to twist the Minister’s arm to do that, but I encourage him to take the clear message back to Government that we want to see a very strong positive message from the Government about supporting British farmers and getting behind them in every way we can.