Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

Coming from the mainly rural constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in Northern Ireland, I know what it is like to live among farmers. Indeed I am a farmer myself. The European Union has provided significant finance and wider support to the rural community. Although many farmers, fishermen and rural businesses recognise that, they also add the question: at what cost? With all the paperwork involved in European regulations and directives, many farmers and rural businesses are saying, “Is it worth it?” Most of them are answering no, it is not, simply because it adds to their burden. Farmers want to farm and businesses want to get on with their business, and they do not want to be burdened with that additional red tape and bureaucracy. I listened to the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) proactively highlight that—he is not in his place at the moment, but I thought that he showed an interesting aspect of this. When we exit the European Union, we need—in fact, we demand this—the United Kingdom and the devolved institutions not to follow through with red tape and bureaucracy, particularly that related to the common agricultural policy.

The most effective report on this that I have read comes from the Scottish Government and was published in August 2014. It says:

“We believe that the EU Commission rely on a fear culture to achieve compliance with a complex set of regulations. The fear culture transcends through to Paying Agencies (fear of disallowance), inspectors (fear of audit failure) and beneficiaries (fear of unintended compliance failures and financial penalties).”

I commend the Scottish Government for being so open, honest and truthful about the regulations and how they affect their farmers and rural communities. They are hugely critical of the penalty system imposed through the common agricultural policy, mainly due to the fear culture imposed by the Commission.

Whatever happens with the exit under Brexit, my one plea is that we will not follow through with those regulations and directives. Many other countries in the European Union do not impose them, but we in the United Kingdom have to impose them to the top end.

Tree Planting

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the issue is not just EU grants; it is how we deal with grants after we leave the EU. If we have the right mindset, we could produce a better grant scheme. If a percentage of better quality land further south in England where good crops can be grown is taken for trees, we will have to have a system to reward landowners for doing that. Otherwise, they will naturally decide to continue to grow other crops. Trees may be grown for aesthetic, conservation, and recreation reasons. Major forests may provide recreation, but that may also be done around our cities and highly populated areas. The great challenge for a grant system and support is to get people to plant in those areas, which is what I am keen to see.

Points have been made about climate change and the need to plant more trees to absorb carbon, as well as to stop flooding. That applies not just on marginal and steep land. In areas of run-off where intensive crops are grown, planting strips of woodland stops flooding and soil erosion. We can do an awful lot and we do not have to follow the common agricultural policy. I do not want future Governments to say, “We can’t do this.” We can do it if we look at it sensibly.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) for bringing forward this debate, which is very topical. Balcas is a big timber firm in my constituency and I should declare an interest because I have a small amount of forested land on my farm. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one way of developing our own policy in the United Kingdom is to have zoned areas of forestry? He referred to difficult land—at least, I think he hinted at difficult land in Scotland—but he did not mention difficult land in Northern Ireland. Does he accept that zoned areas of forestry might be an opportunity?

[Neil Parish]

Yes. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we would have to be careful to have the right zoned areas. I am fearful of civil servants and others drawing lines on a map. They are not always entirely in the right place. We can have zoned areas, but we must put the right system in place to encourage people in those areas to grow trees. People will be more likely to do that if the right grant system is in place, because there will not be competition for what to grow on the land, so it could happen. We need to move forward and to make sure we have a balance between broadleaved trees and conifers. There is an anti-conifer world out there and some people say we cannot have conifers. We can, and in larger forests we can make sure the mixture is right from the recreation and management point of view.

Trees can be planted to stop flooding. I went up to Yorkshire recently with the floods inquiry where, traditionally, the Forestry Commission had turned the soil up by digging trenches and planted trees on top. When there is a flood, the water runs off down the furrow and straight into streams much quicker. As we plant, we must be more careful about possible flooding. Many things can be learned and achieved. With more trees we will create a better landscape and environment, and lock in carbon. We can reduce flooding and we can manage our land better. Highly productive farms have corners in fields and other places that are difficult to cultivate and they can be planted with trees. The area I represent includes the Blackdown hills, which are full of copses and small areas of woodland that are essential in our landscape. We should see more of that.

My final point is the fact that much of our woodland is not managed environmentally or for wood production. It is important that more woodland is managed.

Dog Fighting

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing a debate on such a vital issue, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) has just said. In the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs we are conducting an inquiry into animal welfare, and there seems to be a direct correlation between dog fighting, the abuse of animals and the culture in neighbourhoods that frightens off people but is also destructive to animals.

It should hardly need to be said that dog fighting has no place in any civilised society. The fear and pain that fighting dogs suffer on a daily basis are difficult to contemplate. It constitutes an appalling breach of the trust that dogs have in their masters and the responsibility that we all have as human beings. That criminal violence, which is what dog fighting is, goes on to hurt communities, promoting lawlessness and frightening people on their own streets, particularly in impoverished areas. Given the callous mentality it requires, it is no surprise that where we see dog fighting, we often see links to other kinds of criminality and abusive behaviour. That is something that all Members of this House—and indeed, the vast majority of the public—can agree on, but the League Against Cruel Sports estimates that dog fighting takes place in Britain and Northern Ireland at least once every day. That is completely unacceptable.

I pay tribute to the League Against Cruel Sports for the academic work it has done to establish clear evidence of the extent of dog fighting. Given the difficulty in extrapolating specific dog-fighting statistics from the general animal fighting statistics, without the League’s work this debate may not have been possible.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

I will not, as I am anxious about the time because other Members want to speak, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s basic concerns will not be unlike mine and those of other Members from Northern Ireland. Even though we have certain, more restrictive legislation, it is only as effective as the enforcement that takes place.

It is important that the elements of the Wooler report are implemented quickly and effectively, and I look forward to the Select Committee report on animal welfare, which will concentrate on dogs, cats and horses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to consider the utterly barbaric practice of dog fighting. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing the debate, which has been intelligent and considered and had cross-party support. I also thank Marc Abraham, Blue Cross, the Dogs Trust, the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA and the SSPCA for their briefing ahead of today’s debate.

Although dog fighting was made illegal by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835—the humane Act—evidence suggests it is resurging across the UK. Indeed, it is now a highly codified and organised practice developed for the entertainment of spectators. It is also an extraordinarily brutal, cruel and unsympathetic practice, as my hon. Friend noted.

The welfare of animals is covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales, and by the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Offences relating to animal fights were created by section 8 of the former and by section 23 of the latter. Despite being illegal, fights frequently take place.

[Tom Elliott]

There appears to be a lot of legislation, but the general consensus is that there is a problem with the enforcement of that legislation and with sentencing.

[Dr Monaghan]

I agree, and I will shortly make several suggestions as to how that might be addressed.

Several hundred, and possibly several thousand, organised fights take place each year, with hundreds of thousands of pounds changing hands in associated betting at some fights. Fights are organised in pits, on the streets and in parks, housing estates and fields—in fact, anywhere and everywhere. Three levels of fights are recognised. Level 1 fights are impromptu street fights, or “rolls.” Level 2 or “hobbyist” fights revolve around localised fighting circuits. Level 3 professional fights are highly organised, often internationally. Injuries sustained by dogs at fights often lead to their death through stress and shock. Fights take place to the death simply for people’s amusement. I understand from the SSPCA that the longest recorded dog fight lasted four hours and 12 minutes.

After such abuse the animals are ferocious. The injuries they inflict on other dogs are scarcely believable, and the notion that anyone would wish to participate in the breeding, training, fighting and/or sponsoring of such practices beggars belief—more so given that injured animals rarely receive veterinary attention. The crude analogy applied to such trained dogs is that of high-value pedigree racehorses, but in dog fighting, of course, the animals are expendable, and they are abused and abandoned if no longer match-fit. Grand champion fighting dogs are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to their owners, with stud fees of £5,000 to £6,000 being common. The picture could not be clearer: dog fighting is big business and utterly horrific in every respect. We should consider dog fighting a serious organised crime.

The Scottish National party has been at the forefront of animal rights, both in this Parliament and in Scotland. Dog fighting should be seen as a gateway crime. Involvement in clandestine dog fighting leads to other crimes such as illegal gambling, the importation and exportation of animals, abuse of the pet travel scheme, animal theft and drug and gun crime. Strategies to address dog fighting should therefore follow the counter-terrorism strategy—engage and prevent.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 bans the ownership of a number of dog breeds, some of which are considered fighting breeds. The Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland, but it has been amended separately in Scotland and in England and Wales. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, has considered the Act’s application in the context of England and will report in the near future. Suffice it to say that the Act appears to be ineffective and must be revised, because it focuses on breed, not deed.

Prohibited breeds are difficult to identify and categorise, and dogs are cross-bred to develop strains more suitable for fighting. We know that there is significant underground market activity in the trade in fighting dogs, with puppies being sold for thousands of pounds. Breed-specific legislation is fundamentally flawed. It is a startling statistic that, of the 623 dogs seized as being of a prohibited type over a two-year period, almost a quarter were later found not to be of a prohibited type and were returned to their owners, bringing into further question the concept of what constitutes a dangerous dog. The Act must be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Although dog fighting is illegal across the UK, specific dog-fighting laws do not exist. Offences are recorded within broader animal welfare and cruelty Acts, which make it illegal to co-ordinate and promote a fight; to keep, possess or train a dog for fighting; or to attend a dog fight as a spectator. Direct animal fighting offences are set in section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act. The law defines an animal fight as

“an occasion on which a protected animal is placed with an animal, or with a human”.

However, it can be argued that street fighting is spontaneous and, as such, an animal is not placed, meaning that such fights are not covered by the legislation. Legislation has had no apparent effect on either dog fighting or the recorded occurrence of injuries from dog bites.

Three important steps can be taken to address the problem: increased sentences and penalties as a deterrent, education as a preventive measure and policy changes to encourage engagement. Currently, the maximum sentence for animal fighting in the UK is a term of up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment. In reality, however, sentences are unacceptably low. The example set by Northern Ireland should be followed.

In the US, as we heard earlier, dog fighting is considered a felony in all 50 states, as well as a federal felony. In 2016, the FBI declared that it would track animal abuse in the same way that it tracks class A felonies for accounting, reporting and tracking purposes, and that felony-level penalties for repeat offenders would be enacted. We must recognise that the evidence shows links between animal abuse and other forms of abuse, such as battery, child abuse, domestic violence, grievous bodily harm, serious violent offences, the use of firearms and so on. As such, dog fighting should also be considered a signal crime.

We call on the UK Government to review sentences under the Animal Welfare Act and introduce penalties that reflect the seriousness of such offences and the horrific abuse of animals, to ensure that punishments fit the crime. Dog fighting should be recorded as a specific offence, separate from animal fighting, to enable the scale of the problem to be more accurately assessed. Dog licensing should also be considered. There should be a presumption that court disposals use sentences at the upper end of sentencing scales—the maximum allowed by law, not the minimum.

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 is designed to highlight the responsibility of dog owners by introducing a regime that identifies out-of-control dogs at an early juncture. Many animal welfare charities invest considerable resources in excellent work to teach young people and others about responsible dog ownership. Programmes specifically target young people, those in prison and others who own a status dog or live in a community where status dog ownership is a problem. Such programmes are aimed at increasing awareness of the issues involved and stimulating debate and discussion on responsible dog ownership, antisocial behaviour and the law.

Third-party policing involves persuading organisations, groups or individuals—including community centres, veterinarians, schools, local government and business owners—to take some responsibility for preventing or reducing crime and encouraging people to report animal crime. In that way, crime control guardians are created. Crime control guardians can also be described as a multi-agency taskforce. That approach has proved effective in a number of communities in the US on animal cruelty in general and dog fighting specifically. We are calling for education programmes like those to be commended, encouraged and enabled.

As a matter of policy, sentencing for dog fighting should reflect the object of deterrence relative to the spectrum of offending. The detection of animal fighting offences should become a performance indicator for police forces, adding an incentive to deal with the crime. Details of individuals banned from keeping dogs and other animals should be held on a UK-wide register by statutory agencies. That would help prevent those convicted of animal cruelty offences from being able to commit further offences, as well as increasing opportunities for enforcement action. Rehabilitation programmes should be offered as part of the sentencing disposal to encourage a strategy of education.

Nevertheless, human behaviour is ultimately responsible for dog bites. Breed-specific legislation to ban the ownership of certain types of dogs merely addresses a symptom of an otherwise unaddressed underlying problem. It is likely that dog attacks are rooted in deeper and more diverse socioeconomic causes, such as deprivation and a lack of education concerning the handling of dogs. All those factors contribute to the growth of dog fighting at levels 1 and 2. Clearly, repeated presentations for medical attention could indicate involvement in lower-level dog fighting and associated handling. We are calling for the disclosure to police of those seeking medical assistance for dog attack injuries, to allow investigation and tracking. It is also clear that mandatory reporting by veterinary professionals of dog-fighting injuries could help identify welfare issues and criminal activity and reduce crime.

Ultimately, we are calling for a senior law enforcement officer to be appointed to ensure that there is sufficient collaboration and action to tackle dog fighting across the four nations of the UK and internationally—including, dare I say it, across the EU. The individual should be responsible for integrating the three strands of increased sentences and penalties as a deterrent; education as a preventive measure; and policy changes to encourage further engagement on dog fighting and organised crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

1. What plans the Church of England has to engage with communities that are most in need; and if she will make a statement.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

5. What plans the Church of England has to engage with communities that are most in need; and if she will make a statement.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

7. What plans the Church of England has to engage with communities that are most in need; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I could not agree more. This school, in the Chester diocese, near my hon. Friend’s constituency, is an example of best practice. I was struck by its introduction of a leadership programme for 14 to 16-year-olds. It takes them to Lancaster University for four days and helps them to fulfil their potential and play an active role in their community and wider society.

[Tom Elliott]

Will the right hon. Member tell us whether the Church has any specific programmes dealing with the homeless or those with long-term addictions, such as alcohol or drug abuse?

[Mrs Spelman]

I cannot speak for the Church of Ireland. Obviously, I am speaking from the experience of the Church of England, whose social action does indeed cover the most vulnerable people in our society. Right here, in the diocese of London, it is possible for Members of Parliament to see the work the Church of England does among the homeless. That is replicated in all the dioceses within the Church of England, and I imagine that the same happens in the hon. Gentleman’s own nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would be delighted to visit some of the fantastic producers in Dorset that my hon. Friend mentions, such as the Blackmore Vale dairy, and to see what they have to offer as well as using the Great British Food Unit to promote them both here and overseas. We are working to reduce regulation on our food and farmers, and over the course of this Parliament we are looking to reduce the costs by £500 million, so that we can see more new businesses opening, more exporting and more selling their fantastic food here in Britain.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effect of recent flooding on the agriculture industry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Farmers in many parts of the country have been affected by the winter flooding, notably in Cumbria, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Scotland and, of course, areas of Northern Ireland. We identified 600 farmers in Cumbria alone who suffered flooding after Storm Desmond. Unlike the Somerset floods two years ago, the flooding events have been relatively short-lived. However, in their wake, considerable damage has been done to stone walls, hedges and tracks. In England, we have established a farm recovery fund to help farmers get back on their feet.

[Tom Elliott]

In Northern Ireland, there is a long-established relationship with the Republic of Ireland Government in relation to Lough Erne and its levels. The UK Government had a relationship, too, from 1950, when that deal was made. Have there been any discussions with the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development about reviewing the levels of Lough Erne to stop farmers from being flooded in the area?

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, flooding is a devolved matter, but if there is a need for discussion with the Irish Republic and if the Northern Ireland Administration would like me to be involved in that, I would be happy to have that conversation with them.

Flooding

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) spoke earlier of a fatality in his constituency two years ago. I had a fatality in my constituency last month, when Mr Ivan Vaughan’s car was trapped in a flood. It appears that he got out of the car and was washed away. Sadly, he died.

Questions have been asked today about whether dredging works or not. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said that the flood prevention programme following the devastating flooding in Somerset in 2013-14 was working and that dredging was proving effective. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) indicated earlier that he was less enthusiastic about dredging, but certainly in my constituency in Northern Ireland we need further dredging, and I have been campaigning for that in Lough Erne. I know the Secretary of State and the Minister will say that that is a devolved issue, and I accept that, but the Electricity Supply Board and the Republic of Ireland Government have a role, and therefore so, too, do the UK Government; this is a four-party agreement. There are aspects that this Government need to look at.

We have had a dispute here today about finances, and about who is right and who is wrong, some of it between the Opposition and the Government, and some of it between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. I do not want to get into that argument, but I do know that there is a serious difference between the compensation or the money available to homeowners who have been affected in Northern Ireland compared with the money available here in England. Here, it is up to £5,000 for businesses and homeowners, whereas in Northern Ireland it is only up to £1,000, and that is limited to homeowners.

I asked yesterday about the Barnett consequentials. I know that the Secretary of State said that it was a devolved issue for Northern Ireland, but if additional money is going into flood defences and repairs in England, surely the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are entitled to the Barnett consequentials of that. I would like a specific answer on that aspect, just to see whether that can boost the support and help that we and the devolved institutions receive.

Flooding

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

An official Cobra call is taking place at the moment to ensure that the people of Durham have every resource that can be provided for them.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in sending condolences to the family of the late Ivan Vaughan, who was swept away by the floods in my constituency and killed as a result.

The £5,000 that has been paid to homes and businesses in England seems great when compared with the £1,000 in Northern Ireland. Will Northern Ireland benefit from the significant amounts that have been paid by the Government as a result of Barnett consequentials?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to get the balance right, but I disagree with his view that we are not getting it right. We have for many years now had very successful countryside stewardship schemes with billions of pounds invested in creating new habitats for wildlife so that we can see a recovery in farmland bird populations and an improvement in, for instance, the number of pollinators.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

May I also wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers and those in the Department a merry Christmas, and indeed a peaceful new year, even sometimes in this place? I want to emphasise the issue of online services in the Department. While they are very useful and helpful, not every farming community has good rural broadband and they do not always replace the face-to-face contact that is required by farmers.

[George Eustice]

We recognise that, which is why we will in future be ensuring that farmers who want to submit their basic payment scheme applications on paper will be able to do so, but the Government are also investing hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to areas that do not currently have it.

Climate Change and Flooding

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I should like to urge Opposition Members in particular to pay close attention to what I have to say. Unfortunately, the motion shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the reality on the ground in Hawick and the Scottish borders, which is my constituency and which suffered serious flooding earlier this month.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in my constituency in Northern Ireland there has been serious flooding in the past 10 days, and the motion makes no reference to that? Even today, at least 16 roads are still closed in the constituency.

[Calum Kerr]

That is an excellent point. My constituency is mentioned in the motion, yet it has not been mentioned once in the debate so far, and the hon. Gentleman has had the same experience. It is extremely disappointing that the motion makes a fundamental error in terms of the funding process for flood defences in Scotland. I hope to explain this and say why I make this statement up front.

On 5 December the River Teviot broke its banks and it is true that some 600 people had to be evacuated in Hawick. A total of 333 homes were impacted, as well as 45 local businesses. However, the town reacted magnificently to the crisis. I was among the volunteers, along with the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Paul Wheelhouse, putting down sandbags under the direction of Hawick flood group, with the police and emergency services, who all did a fantastic job. The reality is that, had it not been for their help and intervention, things would have been a lot worse. I pay tribute to all their efforts, including Scottish Borders Council. We all know that our councils tend to be the whipping boys on occasion, so I pay particular tribute to it for co-ordinating the effort.

The damage and disruption caused by the Hawick flood has been significant. The Scottish Government made it clear from the start that the Bellwin scheme would be implemented to fund repair work. They also emphasised that money was available to fund a full flood prevention scheme. A preferred scheme has been chosen, and we are now moving to detailed design. It is critical to get this right, as a wrongly built scheme can fail or even make things worse. This swift response has eased the worries of people in the town and shown the Scottish Government to be empathetic and fast acting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

It has been an interesting debate and it is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke about his views on climate change.

We have talked a lot about the Paris deal. We have that relationship and what will turn out to be an historic agreement. I want to highlight another historic agreement —one made between the Northern Ireland Government and the Republic of Ireland Government back in 1950, which also included the Westminster Government. At that time, there was an agreement between the three Governments to have a hydropower station in the Republic of Ireland using the water that flowed from Lough Erne.

I am disappointed that the motion does not mention Northern Ireland at all. At least 16 roads are closed in my constituency and huge amounts of damage have been done to businesses and homes. Like other constituents in Cumbria, Scotland and other places, a number of my constituents will not be in their homes for Christmas, which is a demoralising situation. Local businesses—family-owned businesses—have lost more than £100,000 of stock and a lot of their Christmas business. That is devastating for them and for me, and it might actually put some of them out of business.

The farmlands, which have been highlighted, are where the agreement between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland come into play. The levels of Lough Erne have not been investigated since 1950. We need that historic agreement to move on and we need a review of it. We need to ensure that some of the actions that took place at that time—in other words, dredging Lough Erne and ensuring that the levels were safe and reasonable—need to be carried out once again.

I appreciate that that is a devolved matter, but I am asking the UK Secretary of State to speak to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Minister in Northern Ireland to see whether there is flexibility and whether another agreement is needed from Westminster, just as there was in 1950. I note that the Secretary of State indicated a special finance scheme or a special scheme for farmers. I wonder whether there will be a knock-on effect, perhaps through the Barnett consequentials, to help farmers in Northern Ireland to clean up. It is important that we get assistance just as people in Cumbria in England and other places in Scotland will get assistance.

My colleagues from Scotland talked about the situation there. Unlike the Departments in Scotland, Departments in Northern Ireland have not dealt with the situation as well. People and staff on the ground have been very effective in helping businesses, domestic homes and farmers, but the Departments have not been effective at the wider aspect of planning. That is a key aspect. We do not want a repeat of what has happened this year. We had the same situation in 2009 that is being repeated six years later. We do not want another repeat in another four or six years.

I am appealing to the Secretary of State and the Government to do all they can to ensure that this does not happen again and, in my case, to liaise with officials and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Departments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We decided this year to have a cautious roll-out by adding one cull area in Dorset. In the light of that cull, we will review things again. There were applications and expressions of interest from north Devon and Herefordshire this year, and there are many other interested parties that I am sure will be considered in future years.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

Has the Minister taken cognisance of the ongoing trials in a specific area of Northern Ireland? Has he had any discussions with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland about those trials?

[George Eustice]

I regularly discuss this issue with Northern Ireland. It is trialling an alternative approach called “test and vaccinate or remove”, whereby badgers that are not believed to have the disease are vaccinated and those that are believed to have it are culled. There are limitations on that because of the limitations of the diagnostic tests. However, we liaise closely with all the relevant devolved Administrations.