Pollinators and Pesticides

Tom Harris Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I begin by echoing other Members’ tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for initiating the debate. Her Committee has published an important and powerful report on the subject and I commend all members of the Environmental Audit Committee for producing it. I am sure the Minister has pored over the document in detail and will give us his thoughts on it later this afternoon.

Outstanding contributions have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). As usually happens when Front Benchers wind up these debates, we tend to be left with only the task of repeating many of the points that have already been made. It reminds me of the old saying that at any meeting everything that has to be said has already been said, but not everyone has said it yet. So I shall plough on regardless.

The debate around neonicotinoids has brought the decline of bee and pollinator populations into sharp focus. The profound effects this will have on the future of horticulture, agriculture and the wider environment cannot be overstated. Bees and other pollinating insects play a vital role in our food supply, providing essential pollination services estimated to be worth £440 million to UK agriculture each year, as well as enriching our natural environment and biodiversity.

Two months ago, in April, I convened what I ambitiously entitled a bee health summit, which was attended by leading academics, environmental groups, biotechnology companies, farming unions and representatives from leading apiary organisations. I apologise to the Minister for forgetting to invite him. I am sure his contributions would have been worth while. Predictably, there was a lack of agreement on the topical issue of a ban or moratorium on neonicotinoids, and the evidential base was hotly contested. It is clear that pesticides currently play an essential part in achieving high levels of crop production in the UK and elsewhere, providing affordable food for consumers and contributing to our food security. Getting the right balance between the benefits of natural pollination services and the benefits of pesticides to crop production is crucial.

At the summit, there were passionate calls to support the use of the precautionary principle, which have been echoed in the debate today, to protect against further decline while additional evidence is gathered and analysed. These calls were countered by some bee health experts, bee organisations and, yes, the companies that produce neonicotinoids, which took a more cautious line based on the lack of any assessment of the impact of a ban on farmers’ use of alternative pesticide products and the impact on UK food production and food security.

Such divides are not reserved to the UK, and a split in opinion was also observed at an EU level. However, now that the Commission has approved an EU-wide moratorium on the three types of neonicotinoids beginning in December 2013, it is vital that the Government work with all parties concerned to ensure that any negative, unintended consequences on bee health—for example, the hon. Member for Stroud referred to the wider use of spray insecticides—do not materialise.

What plans do the Government have in place to support farmers in the build-up to and during the moratorium? Does the Minister agree that the moratorium provides an excellent opportunity to help farmers and growers to adopt integrated pest management and reduce the use of pesticides in line with the Government’s own pesticides action plan? Does the Minister agree with the Society of Biology, which has pushed for adequate and stable investment in agricultural research and environmental monitoring, in order to avoid periodic crises where sufficient evidence has not been available for necessary policy decisions? Will he outline how the Government will take advantage of the breathing space afforded by the moratorium to bridge the current gaps in scientific knowledge on the effects that neonicotinoids have on bees and other pollinators?

It is crucial that a monitoring programme is put in place to assess the full impact of a moratorium and the effect that it will have on wild and managed bees and on farmers and their crops. Will the Minister assure the House that an effective monitoring programme will be put in place? I am sure that he, like me, is aware of significant concerns raised in the scientific community that two years will not be sufficient to monitor the effect on bee health of a moratorium on neonicotinoids, not least because of the multiple variables in the natural and farmed environments.

[Mr Heath]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I see the Minister nodding. Does he agree that those concerns should not deter the Government from co-ordinating the most effective scientific monitoring programme possible so that we can learn from the moratorium period?

Although divides will undoubtedly pertain over a ban on neonicotinoids, during my bee health summit there was unanimous demand for a coherent strategy to reverse the decline in bee numbers and a recognition of the complex factors that need to be addressed, which go well beyond pesticides. Indeed, many warned that a ban on neonicotinoids could be seen as a panacea for the wider range of measures necessary to tackle bee decline. A moratorium does not represent a silver bullet.

The first event that I attended after being appointed to the Front Bench just over a year ago was the Friends of the Earth bee breakfast. I soon got over my initial shock and disappointment—nay, anger—at the lack of breakfast actually being served, because the point was to show what would be available to eat in the event of a world that no longer had bees. That was a very clever, though frightening, way of getting the point across. I can assure Members that people did finally come forward with the toast, butter, honey and jam. They made the crucial point that neonicotinoids and pesticides were important, but only as part of the wider environmental impact that is resulting in bee decline and hive collapse.

There are many causes behind pollinator decline, including changes in agricultural practice in the UK and across Europe; the growth in monocultural crops; the removal of hedges and other wildlife corridors; the increased use of fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides and herbicides; bee pests, including the Varroa mite and deadly pathogens such as Nosema; and the effect of climate change on patterns of flowering, hibernation and food availability. Those are all contributing to falling populations of bees and other pollinator insects. I have frequently voiced the opinion that if we allow ourselves to see the moratorium on neonicotinoids as a silver bullet for bee decline, we become complacent, think “Job done,” and fail to address the many other important issues that we face. It is clear that there is no single solution to the multiple threats that pollinators face, and that is why it is vital that we do not see the moratorium as a panacea.

Labour believes that the Government have a crucial part to play in reversing falling populations. We commend Friends of the Earth for their work in promoting their national bee action plan, which would put a comprehensive set of UK-wide measures in place to tackle the many drivers of pollinator decline. Though Ministers have cited a number of Government-led initiatives to improve bee health, these ultimately fail to meet the scale and urgency of the task in hand. Current failure to tackle habitat loss, which needs to be approached from both a conservation and a planning perspective, is a prime example of where the Government are failing to make headway. On the conservation side, in their biodiversity strategy for England, “Biodiversity 2020”, they have not set out specific measures to help threatened bee species or to protect or restore habitats most important to bees, such as lowland meadows and upland hay meadows. Worryingly, DEFRA’s latest habitat trend data show that those habitats are in decline. Will the Minister ensure that they are urgently restored and that specific measures are put in place to help threatened bee species?

The Government are set to publish planning practice guidance on biodiversity. That is an important opportunity to give councils guidance and impetus to protect and restore bee-friendly habitat through the planning system. However, so far there has been no evidence that the Government are planning to take that opportunity or even to issue the guidance for public consultation. Has the Minister spoken yet with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government regarding this matter, and if so, has he impressed upon them the importance of the issue?

Labour will continue to work with farmers and horticulturists and with bee and environmental organisations to create a future of secure and affordable food produce from a natural and farm environment that minimises the risk to our pollinators and enhances our countryside, wildlife, habitats and biodiversity. In order to do that, I urge the Government once again to use the moratorium period to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge of the effects of pesticides and to bring forward urgently a comprehensive national bee action plan to reverse the awful decline in bee health.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Harris Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Horsemeat

Tom Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I am conscious that other Members want to get in, so I will press on and make a little more progress.

It is clear that complex cross-European supply networks are involved in these incidents. I understand that Comigel was supplying customers in 16 European countries. That is why I have pressed hard for a European response. Yesterday, my Irish, French and Romanian counterparts, and the commissioner, were enthusiastic and united in wanting to work closely with us. I look forward to taking those discussions further tomorrow in Brussels.

I have made it clear to the food industry that I expect to see meaningful results from its product testing by this Friday. The results will be published as they become available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). In many ways, I shall continue the theme that she has introduced, albeit possibly from a different perspective. There are many other Members who know a lot more than I do about traceability and supply chain management, but I have done quite a lot of work on the food system as a whole.

Let us be frank: we are facing a crisis in the food system. The crisis relates not to the replacement horsemeat that we are discussing today. That is just one of the symptoms of the crisis relating to the cost of food. The food system, particularly in this country, is designed around cheap food. That is a business model that has developed over many decades, and it is because that model is changing that we are now seeing fraud within the system.

In the UK, food prices have risen dramatically over the past five years. The 32% increase in that period is double the EU average, and the problem is going to get worse. In April, we are likely to see a significant price increase owing to the American drought. The Russians have been imposing intermittent restrictions on exports, and it is extremely worrying that Ukraine, which has signed a debt swap with the Chinese, is seeking to secure that debt swap with its food commodities. Ukraine has been acting as Europe’s traditional hedging supplier for cost reduction in raw commodities.

The crisis is that the era of cheap food is now over. We all need to put in place policies and strategies to achieve the difficult result of smoothing the transition to a higher-priced food sector and ensuring that, despite the price rises, the families the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was talking about will be able to feed themselves with quality food and be sure that the food they are putting on their tables is what it says on the package.

I have not heard the Opposition put forward any strategies to address the fundamental issue that we are facing globally. Let me put some thoughts on that to the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). First, the supermarkets —and possibly we politicians—must start to be straight with the public about rising food prices. Maybe after this disaster we will start to face up to the realities. It is not the supermarkets or the manufacturers that are absorbing the price rises; it is the consumers. Horsemeat replacement products are the result of a flawed business model, in that that has been seen as the only way to square the ludicrous circle of having cheap food in the shops and rocketing food prices in the supply chain.

Consumers are suffering not only from fraudulent food but from the substitution of the best ingredients with what some people call “arterial Polyfilla”. The £1 cottage pie in the local freezer shop that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned might have been the same price for the past five years, but will it still have the same contents? Will it contain less meat and have more high-fructose corn syrup, which some people call “heart attack central”? Packaging is also absorbing more price rises. Are people aware of how much fresh air they are buying in their cereal packets? Also, 60% of all products in supermarkets are now on promotion, but some of those promotions are misleading, as Which?, published by the Consumers Association, has rightly highlighted in its report on food promotions.

I am sure that the Government are now taking a new look at food policy. Over the past 15 years, they have more or less devolved the relationship between the consumer and food to the supermarkets. That has never been right, but it cannot now continue. We need to re-engineer our food policy around consumers, not around producers or retailers. We need to move from a “cheap as chips” model to one in which we value food. The new food cost reality might ultimately be better for the public and for our producers, but the transition is already very painful.

When I talk to the poorest families in my constituency, they tell me that they cannot afford to go to the supermarket any more. I might as well ask them whether they go to Harvey Nichols or Harrods. They get their food from pound shops, Aldi, Lidl, corner shops and street markets. Chips from the takeaway with ketchup or brown sauce will be dinner for the family.

Some of our strategies are interesting. They cover cooking and eating more healthily. Change for Life is a fantastic health programme in this country. The problem is, however, that Change for Life as a message is difficult when some of my families do not have enough time to change their clothes and they are in many ways intimidated by the thought of that type of proposition.

[Mr Tom Harris]

I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech a great deal, but I wonder where she is going with it. It is not necessarily a bad thing—I just wondered whether I could pre-empt the point she is perhaps coming on to. She said that we have to be realistic about the value of food. I felt that she was preparing us all to pay more for our food. How does that equate with her obvious sympathy with the poorest families in her constituency? How will they manage to make that leap if incomes stay as low as they are?

[Laura Sandys]

I think that that is a false choice. The issue is that we have stopped valuing, understanding and being able to use food. One thing has been a huge asset: this week, the Secretary of State for Education announced that food preparation and food cooking will be part of the national curriculum. Through such moves, we are creating a more resilient public. We cannot get away from the fact that global food prices are rising. We must support the poorest families in that transition. I do not believe that we need to eat less well, despite the rise in the food prices. What we need to do is to have greater transparency, much more resilience and greater skills to be able to use food more effectively.

Poorer families will be making cheaper choices, so it is crucial that labelling is transparent. Where is the flash on that cottage pie saying “30% less meat”? Government also need to look at tightening some of the regulations on food promotion. Products that are less expensive are going on promotion at more expensive prices. Retailers are shortening the period in which a product needs to be on full price before a discount is a true discount. That is another form of consumers absorbing price rises, but not absorbing them transparently.

We need not just a summit on food safety, but a commission on our whole food system, focusing on the consumer and ensuring that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the public who are going to have to manage the painful transition from a “cheap as chips” food model to a more expensive one. Families should be able to feed themselves as well in the new model if we provide the support and ensure that the retailers do not try to pretend that nothing has changed.

Burying our heads in the sand has got us to where we are now. Customers have had to face either lack of transparency or the actual experience of food fraud. Horsemeat in my view is only the beginning of this food crisis, if we do not face up to the realities of rising food prices and become the champion of the consumer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

This has been an important and well-informed debate, and I wish to thank some Members individually for taking part. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) all made excellent speeches.

There can be few subjects more important to us as individuals than what we eat and what we feed to our children and family. I am only sorry that the Secretary of State was too busy to listen to a single speech made after his own.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is important that I put it on the record that the Secretary of State is having the phone meeting with the Dutch Minister that he mentioned to the House. It is also important that we make those connections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman reappearing in the Chamber, but I am grateful to the Minister of State for that clarification. I know that the Secretary of State has a busy schedule—he told us so. He said that he was meeting again today with the food industry, his second such meeting in four days. I thought that might be the meeting that took him away from the Chamber, and I would have congratulated him, but I realised that today’s meeting was not convened at short notice, or even as a response to the horsemeat scandal; it was convened last October to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to talk about waste and genetically modified food. It is good to see that, at least when it comes to his diary, the right hon. Gentleman has no problem with changing the label.

It is vital that we as consumers have full confidence that what we are eating is exactly what is stated on the packet and that Ministers are fighting our corner, but consumers watching the Secretary of State’s performance today and his statement yesterday will not have been encouraged. Many questions remain unanswered, so I hope that the Minister of State will answer them in his response. Some of them were asked yesterday but were left unanswered or were ignored by the right hon. Gentleman, who felt unable to answer them even today.

The Secretary of State told the House yesterday that he first became aware of the horsemeat problem on 15 January. Early in his statement, he said:

“On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 608.]

Will the Minister of State clarify whether that communication on 15 January was the first time the FSA was aware that such tests were taking place? Was the FSA contacted by the Irish authorities at any time between mid-November and 15 January to alert the FSA to the fact that concerns about the adulteration of beef had sparked an analysis? If so, when was that first contact made? Were Ministers told at the outset? If not, why not?

I did not pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) at the start of my speech because I wanted to make special mention of her terrific speech, which the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North described as an excellent advert for vegetarianism. I tried vegetarianism once, but gave up after about a month because I really cannot stand mushrooms. After the statement yesterday, my hon. Friend asked a sensible question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North repeated today, about an EU regulation that would limit to 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up mincemeat. She asked about reports that the Government are seeking a derogation from that regulation. The Secretary of State dismissed her in an extremely curt and arrogant manner, which I am sure he, being a gentleman, now regrets. Will the Minister of State now answer that question? Are the Government seeking to exempt the UK from a measure that is aimed specifically at protecting the rights of consumers?

I know the Minister of State, who will respond to the debate, takes a keen interest in the Food Standards Agency. I know that because he told the “Food Programme” on Sunday not once, but twice, “I can only go on the information given to me by the Food Standards Agency.” Fine. Good. So will he now accept the advice of the chief executive of the FSA, who has said that retailers

“need to test significantly across the product range, across wider meat-based product ranges”?

She was talking about chicken and pork products. Will the Minister, who prides himself on listening to the advice of the FSA, heed her advice? Do the Government have a view on this at all? [Interruption.] The Minister will get his chance to respond. He does love to chunter from a sedentary position. I spent two years on the Science and Technology Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and he was a veritable ray of sunshine during those many overseas visits. He was great company and I have to say that he seems to have gone into an awful bad mood since he went on to the Government Front Bench. I am sure that after the next election—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure we want to get back on to the subject of horsemeat. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Minister has been eating it?

[Mr Harris]

I am getting back in the saddle right now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Minister of State warned Members a few weeks ago that we should not talk down the British food industry, and he is right, but given the huge number of jobs that the industry supports and its importance to our economy does he recognise that the industry can be undermined by other factors? Does he accept that ministerial inaction and indecisiveness can be far more damaging to the industry?

In mid-November Irish authorities were concerned enough about contamination of meat products—sorry, adulteration of meat products—some of which were headed to the United Kingdom, that they initiated tests without, according to UK Ministers, informing the UK Government of their initial concerns. Four weeks ago Irish authorities alerted the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers stocked in a number of UK supermarkets. Last Monday it was revealed that pies and pasties labelled as halal and served in UK prisons had tested positive for pig DNA. Last Thursday, reports emerged that the scandal had spread from frozen burgers to frozen ready meals.

Cue a sudden blur of belated action from the Secretary of State. On Saturday, he finally got round to meeting the British food industry to discuss the growing crisis. His food Minister had a least got round to meeting the industry before, once, one week previously. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said yesterday, “Crisis, what crisis?” At last, yesterday, the Secretary of State deigned to come to the House to berate Opposition Members for having the audacity to question him about this mess. As with the ash dieback issue, he has taken a very laid-back and relaxed approach to the issue—an attitude that, I have to tell him, is not shared by British consumers and their families.

When sales fall, when confidence in our food industry plummets, no doubt Ministers will reach for the nearest microphone to decry “scare mongering” by Opposition politicians. Who knows? Perhaps an unfortunate young relation of the Secretary of State will be encouraged to eat a Findus lasagne live on telly! But it will not be those on the Opposition Benches who are responsible for the collapse in trust. Consumers, yes, and voters well know where the blame lies.

A number of Members have highlighted the lack of an active criminal investigation. When pressed on this yesterday by my colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State said that

“she went on and on about the police”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 613.]

Really? Does the Secretary of State really think that such a patronising and condescending manner is the way to win support in the House on such an issue? May I suggest to the Secretary of State and to his deputy that a bit of humility would not go amiss? I say this as a non-practitioner myself, but I hear it works wonders. Even if ministerial action had so far been above criticism, such a manner would be inappropriate, and Ministers’ actions so far have been far from being above criticism.

The shadow Secretary of State was right to go on about the police. The Secretary of State himself has repeatedly stated that the adulteration is a result of “an international criminal conspiracy” and “a straight fraud”. In line with this, the Irish Government confirmed on Monday 4 February that the Garda and fraud specialists had been called in to investigate.

The shadow Secretary of State passed the details of more British companies alleged to be involved in the scandal to the Serious Organised Crime Agency last Friday and to the FSA on Saturday. On the same Friday, the FSA revealed that the police were involved, but that no live criminal investigation was active. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that until there was criminal action in this country, the police could not take action. Is that really the case? Will he confirm that he thinks criminals are present everywhere in Europe except the United Kingdom?

I delayed reference to the first-class and powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I want to echo some of her comments. I hope we will not use this debate and crisis as an excuse to tax supermarkets, which, despite their drawbacks, have made affordable, quality food available to ordinary families throughout the country. However, with massive retail power comes huge responsibility—to make sure that the items sold are precisely as described as on the labels. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State echo that sentiment.

We all see the value of sourcing products locally. Many Members have understandably used this debate to promote local produce, but that is far too complacent—ignoring the realities of economic and time pressures on modern families, simply to advise consumers to buy the ingredients of lasagne in their corner shops rather than a ready meal at Asda or Tesco. It is also too easy for the Secretary of State to dismiss his responsibilities by saying repeatedly that retailers have ultimate responsibility for the content of food. Unless he wants the “F” removed from DEFRA, it is incumbent on him to carry out the responsibilities he already has.

I know that the Secretary of State believes in a laissez-faire form of government—he thinks that the Government should not get involved in the running of people’s lives. He seems to have taken that a step further, seeming to believe that the Government should not get involved in the running of the Government. The FSA is independent, but that does not prevent the Secretary of State’s from asking it what kind of testing it plans to carry out.

I shall wind up now, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are two types of Government: the one whose Ministers are so confident, competent and on top of their briefs that from the Opposition Benches government looks easy. Then there is the other type—the Government whose members never seem well briefed or surefooted, but always seem to be behind the curve, making the wrong decisions too late. Such a Government leave the Opposition with the distinct impression that almost anyone else could do a better job. There is no doubt about which category this Government fall into.

EU Fisheries Negotiations

Tom Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

I sympathise with the Minister for being forced to sit through the night at the Fisheries Council at the end of last year in what I am confident he would describe as a Kafkaesque experience. Does he agree that our fishing industry deserves better than this undignified and often chaotic annual round of negotiations each December? More to the point, does he agree that public and industry confidence in the negotiation framework would be enhanced by a substantial degree of transparency? By holding meetings behind closed doors, the Council prevents us from evaluating the logic behind its decisions. What measures does the Minister plan in future to open up these negotiations to a healthy dose of public scrutiny?

We are at a critical point for fisheries management, and common fisheries policy reform is at the top of the agenda. May I wish the Minister every success during the EU-Norway negotiations on the North sea cod quota next week? Labour Members welcome the news that automatic cuts to the North sea cod quota and a reduction in the number of fishing days at sea have been avoided. Given public outrage at the shameful waste of discards, any change in policy that increased discards would have been unacceptable. Is the Minister aware of concerns within the fishing industry that the vote by the Council of Ministers to amend the more problematic parts of the cod management plan could be subject to legal challenge from the European Parliament? Can he guarantee that the Council’s vote will not be overruled by the outcome of such a legal challenge?

The Minister told the House that proposed cuts to quotas were “often not supported by the available evidence”. Will he give us examples? Can he confirm that despite the Council’s, and his own, public support for evidence-based policy-making, about half of all quotas have been set above levels advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea? He reported that the Council was able to increase quotas for those stocks that are improving. Can he confirm to the House that all these quota increases were unambiguously supported and recommended by the scientific evidence?

What discussions, if any, took place at Council regarding the ongoing dispute between UK and Icelandic fishermen on disputed north-east Atlantic mackerel stock? Was the Minister personally involved in any discussions on the possible enforcement of EU sanctions against Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and will he update the House on this crucial issue?

Is the Minister fully aware of the increasing importance to Scottish processing plants of the blue whiting quota, and will he bear this in mind as he approaches the EU negotiations with Norway next week? Total allowable catch for blue whiting increased significantly in 2012 but is still constrained by our commitment to swap quotas for North sea cod with Norway—a move that largely benefits Spain and Portugal.

Lastly, given the importance to these annual negotiations of quota distribution within the EU, will the Minister update the House on when he expects to be able to publish the full, comprehensive and up-to-date list of who owns the UK fishing quota, long promised by this Government?

I welcome the Minister’s statement and wish him every success in future negotiations. So long as he continues to represent the fight for the sustainability of the UK’s fishing industry and of our vital natural resource, he will continue to enjoy our conditional support.

[Richard Benyon]

I would expect nothing less from the hon. Gentleman.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy about the absurd and ridiculous processes that one has to go through. With the reform of the common fisheries policy, we have a golden opportunity to end some of the absurdity, if not all of it. We can cease the ridiculous charade of a Minister like me discussing fishing net sizes with a Commission official perhaps 1,000 miles from where the net will be used. That is a technical matter that should be decided locally with fishermen. That is why our regionalisation agenda as part of the CFP reform is so important.

The system can also be improved through better long-term management plans. The cod recovery plan is a bad plan, but that should not dissuade us from pushing for more long-term management plans that are scientifically based and worked through with the industry, taking away from politicians the late-night horse trading and making the system much more evidence based. We want to see more of that.

The hon. Gentleman raised an issue about cod. Where cod effort continues to be reduced, the incentive is then for fishermen to fish as soon as possible after leaving port, and that might not be the most sustainable place for them to catch fish—it might be where cod are spawning or where there are more juvenile fish. We want to encourage them to go to the places where there are the larger fish that they can target sustainably.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether this will be subject to a legal challenge. It may well be—these things happen. I was very clear that I did not want the livelihoods of our fishermen or the sustainability of our seas to be the totemic issue on which inter-institutional rivalries would be sorted out. Therefore, the decision we took to support the presidency in sorting out this element of the cod recovery plan was the right one. It may well end up in court and I cannot guarantee the result, but we have secured a sensible solution for this year.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. ICES looks at individual fish stocks rather than, as is the case in this country, mixed fisheries, so we do apply other scientific advice. On cod, we got ICES to agree that our rationale was right that if we had progressed down the route proposed by the Commission, it would have resulted in more discards.

Mackerel remains our absolute priority. It is this country’s biggest by-value catch and I am determined to do all we can to get Iceland and the Faroes back to the negotiating table and find a solution. If not, sanctions remain on the table.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman about blue whiting, because that is a more technical issue.

We inherited an extraordinary situation whereby we do not know who owns quota in this country, which is daft. We have set about our determination to resolve that issue this year, so I hope that at some point in 2013 we will be able to explain to the House whether or not quota is actually owned by football clubs and celebrities, as is constantly made clear to me. We have yet to find out and are working hard to achieve that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Harris Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

Quite rightly, the Act allowed Ministers the discretion to consider socio-economic impacts in the designation of zones. I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that we will take such considerations into account.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s Department insists that a lack of scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to delay the establishment of marine conservation zones. Three and a half years after Labour’s world-leading Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and £8.5 million, the latest nature watch report by the Wildlife and Countryside Link has awarded Ministers a black mark for their inaction. When the Department is given an opportunity to act, why does it choose instead to dither?

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman had only to consult his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), to understand the basis of what we are seeking to achieve. A couple of weeks ago, those on the Labour Front Bench were wrongly accusing the Government of ignoring scientific advice. The hon. Gentleman is now telling us to ignore such advice but I am sorry, we are not prepared to do that. The establishment of marine conservation zones must be done properly and stand up in terms of evidence. In the full spirit of the 2009 Act, on which all parties agreed, we must have absolute clarity on what is meant by ecological coherence, and we will get there.

Fisheries

Tom Harris Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Brady. I did a double take when I saw you there. You look very different from at the start of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing this debate. I add my voice to those who complained that this debate is not taking place on the Floor of the House, although the quality of debate today has been no less than in years gone by. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have spoken eloquently and are well informed about the fishing communities they represent.

I take this opportunity to echo the words of hon. Members who paid tribute to the bravery of our fishermen and those who lost their lives in an incredibly difficult and dangerous line of work. The men and women who work out at sea and in our ports take huge risks, and too many of them and their families pay the ultimate price.

There is clear cross-party consensus that radical reform of the common fisheries policy is needed, and I take this opportunity to commend the Minister on his attempts this year and before that to take forward proposals that will be of great advantage to the industry and our marine environment. On this issue, he is—although I am reluctant to admit it—doing a difficult job well, and he has the support of the Opposition in his continued efforts to secure real reform. The Labour Government fought for fisheries reform in Europe, and we were committed to a radical reform programme in our last manifesto. For the absence of doubt, that is the one that was so enthusiastically endorsed by the electorate.

A collaborative approach to fisheries management will be particularly important in ongoing efforts to eliminate discards. Discarding is a symptom of the poor management and practice of the current common fisheries policy. It is wasteful, undermines the sustainability of fish stocks, distorts scientific evidence, and deeply affects and frustrates our fishermen. Throwing good fish back into the sea is simply squandering a valuable natural resource, and is nothing short of immoral. In some fisheries, up to 60% of catches are discarded. Clearly, that cannot be allowed to continue.

Catch quota trials were introduced in 2011 to reduce discards of North sea cod. Cod in the North sea is recovering, but not as fast as prescribed in the EU cod management plan, so a 20% cut in total allowable catch is likely to be implemented under provisions in the management plan. The Opposition believe that such a cut would be counter-productive. Any reduction in total allowable catch for one species such as cod in a mixed fishery such as the North sea is likely to increase discards. However, any support for the status quo must be matched by increased commitments to selective fishing practices so that cod mortality continues to decrease to meet the plan’s target.

Much has been said about common fisheries policy reform. I know that time is short, so I will move on quickly to discuss a couple of issues related indirectly to the CFP. The continued overfishing of north-eastern Atlantic mackerel is another issue that must be resolved. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for her comments on the issue. The Opposition call on the UK and Scottish Governments to continue to defend the fishing rights of UK fleets.

Labour supports the EU’s plans to ban imports of mackerel and other fish from Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The western mackerel fishery has traditionally been one of the most sustainable and well-managed fisheries in Europe, and the refusal of those island nations to take part in any sensible negotiations cannot be tolerated. Unfortunately, sanctions cannot be ruled out. I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is no longer in his seat, but he will always be assured a warm welcome in Scotland, despite his earlier comments. Although sanctions cannot be ruled out, we must rely on them only as a last resort that might not be avoidable.

We also want a rebalancing of the UK’s fishing quota system, to which a number of Members referred, particularly the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). We believe that a radical overhaul of how fishing quotas are allocated within the UK is needed.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given the talk of sanctions against Iceland and the Faroe Islands, has any assessment been made of the price of fish to the householder if fish from those countries is excluded from the UK market?

[Mr Harris]

That is a perfectly valid concern. I am sure that the Government and the fisheries producer organisations have made those calculations, although I do not have access to that information. It must be considered if we are to go down that road, and I am sure that we all hope that that solution—if it is a solution—can be avoided.

Smaller inland fishing vessels make up three quarters of the UK’s fishing fleet and employ nearly two thirds of all full-time workers, but they are restricted from catching more than 4% of the UK fishing quota.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it was his party’s introduction of fixed quota allocations and lack of action to address the situation that has created the difficult problem that the Minister is now trying to address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

The hon. Lady has made numerous interventions in this debate, and her contributions are welcome. I suggest that she has perhaps misjudged the nature of these debates. They are generally not used to score party political points. I will not follow her down that particular road.

Labour is committed to reforms that will tackle vested interests and reward those who fish more sustainably and selectively, with less impact on the environment. I have commended the fishing industry as a whole on advancements being made, but it is unacceptable that fleets representing the smaller, sustainable end of the industry should have to survive on just 4% of the UK fishing quota. That view was supported, I am glad to say, in the sixth report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which recommended a one-off reallocation alongside moves to reallocate quota in-year.

To his credit, the Minister has attempted to reallocate a portion of the constantly underutilised quota, albeit a very small portion, to the under-10s. It is regrettable that the producer organisations have decided to take that decision to judicial review. If the Government’s decision is overturned, does the Minister agree that a vital national resource will be redefined as no more than a commodity, effectively privatising the seas and the fish stocks within it, and will he consider primary legislation to reverse that judgment if it comes? I accept that given the ongoing legal case, he might not want to comment explicitly on those matters, but it is useful to alert him that they will demand answers in the near future.

There is a fear that, as in other countries where a rights-based system has been introduced, the quota will end up in fewer and fewer hands. Our fisheries are a national resource, not a private one; it is the Government’s job to ensure they remain that way. From my previous job as railways Minister, I think that there is an analogy to be made with rail franchises. Rail franchises are given to private companies for a period of time, at the end of which an open competition is held, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to allow those franchises to be exploited by different private companies. However, during the whole of the franchise, the resource—passenger income—is the property of the Government.

With that in mind, can I press the Minister on when the Government will publish an up-to-date list of who currently owns the quota—essentially, the right to fish—in the UK? I fully accept that that comes under the headline “stuff Labour should have done when we were in government”, but that does not let the current Government off the hook, so to speak. The country has the right to know how much quota is owned and exploited by working fishermen and how much, if any, is owned by non-fishing interests.

Finally, another area of debate that needs to be addressed is subsidies and the European maritime and fisheries fund. The EMFF is a funding instrument intended to support the objectives of the reformed CFP from 2014 to 2020. In the past, several member states have benefited from EU financial assistance for the fishing sector without properly implementing and enforcing CFP rules. For example, a number of member states did not fulfil their reporting obligations under the data collection framework regulation, yet they continued to benefit from funding. Surely it is unacceptable that operators who engage in serious infringements can continue to benefit from EU financial assistance.

Does the Minister believe that access to EU funding under the EMFF should be conditional on compliance with and delivery of the reformed CFP and other EU marine legislation? I ask because the general approach outlined by the Council of Fisheries Ministers, on which he sits, overruled the EU Commission’s proposal to introduce clear language in article 12 to ensure that EU financial assistance is not permissible for operators who do not comply with the rules. If he agrees with my previous question, what steps is he taking to redress the change? Surely he does not believe that funding should still be available to operators who flout the CFP’s basic rules. If so, then why did he sign off on it?

That said, I share a lot of common ground with the Minister on the vast range of issues that we have heard today. Fishing is not a party political football, and I do not think that most in the House intend to treat it so. If he cannot answer all the questions raised by me and other hon. Members, I am sure that he will write to us with full answers.

Ash Dieback Disease

Tom Harris Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point based on the evidence in her own constituency, which also sits at the heart of the East Anglian cluster. She allows me to draw attention to the map, which is extremely compelling. It shows that 90% of all incidences of the disease are down the east coast, and most of those are on the bit of the east coast that is closest to Europe and that is affected by the prevailing winds from the east.

I am quite pessimistic about the long-term prospect of our controlling and stopping the disease, but there is a glimmer of optimism in the science of resistance, and it is to that subject that I shall now turn. There are signs that some of our older ash trees might have developed a resistance to the disease, and we now have an opportunity to show scientific leadership by throwing as much resource as possible into identifying a solution.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

May I make a small technical point? The hon. Gentleman just mentioned prevailing winds from the east, but I think that he meant the west.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not spent enough time in the east of East Anglia, where there are often winds from the north and from the east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

Prevailing winds?

[George Freeman]

I stand corrected if I said “prevailing”. There are frequently winds from the east and the north-east and, as the map demonstrates, it is perfectly possible that the disease could have been carried over from mainland Europe.

The scientific research into resistance offers us an important opportunity to identify genetic markers and traits that would allow us to establish a breeding stock of clean, new ash strains, and to unlock as much funding as possible from the European budget to support UK leadership in that field. This is an opportunity for us to promote British plant and forestry science in the context of the European market. I should like to make a small plea to the Minister on behalf of Norfolk. It is perhaps the worst-affected county. It is also home to the John Innes Institute and the Norwich research park, and if there is any scientific work to be done in this regard, I should like us to be at the front of the queue. Our county has a lot to offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

May I begin with an apology to those on the Treasury Bench? I have a mild chest infection, so if I cough at any point, I would not want the spores to carry across the debating Chamber and then for me to be blamed in a couple of days’ time if they come down with the dreaded lurgy. May I also say how delighted I am that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will be responding on behalf of the Government? I look forward to that, as I know that he takes a close and personal interest in our country’s forests.

I have enjoyed today’s debate, almost as much as I have enjoyed watching the permanently confused faces of the Ministers. Some excellent contributions have not only highlighted Government failings, but have offered us a way forward, and I hope that the Government have listened. This dreadful disease will subject 80 million ash trees to a slow decline over the coming decades, changing our landscape for ever. It will hit the pockets of the nursery owners, the timber merchants and the taxpayer, and it will wreak untold damage on our biodiversity, pushing species that rely on ash towards extinction.

The reality of the problem in front of us is stark, and it was ably described by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). Ash dieback disease has been confirmed in 155 sites, including 15 nurseries that had imported infected plants and 55 plantations that had received young trees. Most worryingly, it has now been found in 65 established woodland sites. Scientific opinion is, sadly, now unanimous: trying to stop the disease is a lost cause.

So how did we get to this situation? I ask Government Members who complain about political points being made during this debate to have a quick look at the letter they received from their Whips Office, as it will have the words “Opposition day debate” on it. It is the job of my party to oppose the Government, and that is what Labour Members are doing. It is our job to expose the failings of Ministers when that is necessary, and it is necessary now.

Despite recent personnel changes, it is not difficult to identify Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. They can be identified by their permanently bewildered and startled expressions, and by their tendency, as they stagger from urgent question to statement and back again, to mutter curses against their civil servants along the lines of, “Why wasn’t I told about this before now?” What a terrific record Ministers in this Department have. Having refused to ban wild animals in circuses because it might conflict with their human rights, and having postponed the badger cull because no one told the Department that London was hosting the 2012 Olympic games, DEFRA Ministers found themselves in charge of a new national crisis when the fungus that causes ash dieback was discovered in England. What could possibly go wrong?

As soon as the UK presence of Chalara was confirmed to Ministers, on 3 April, they leapt into action in a veritable blur of activity. The alarm was raised and, with breathtaking urgency and efficiency, the dynamism for which DEFRA is known became all too evident. Before we knew it, a mere five months later, a consultation was launched. On behalf of a grateful nation, let me just say, “Phew!”

The Secretary of State, sadly, misspoke when he told the House:

“The minute we heard about this, we launched a consultation.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1066.]

That would be an absurd statement, heavy with subconscious irony, even if it were true—but it was not. There was a completely unacceptable and unnecessary delay of five months between Ministers being told about the Chalara infection and the consultation being launched—why? That is the equivalent of seeing a burglar breaking into a neighbour’s house and responding by writing a stern and urgent letter to the local police to ask their opinion on local crime-prevention initiatives, and then posting it with a second-class stamp.

Of course, the current Secretary of State cannot be held entirely to blame for his Department’s peculiar reluctance to act when it should have done so seven months ago. [Interruption.] The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), is chuntering from a sedentary position—highly appropriate. After all, the current Secretary of State has been in his job only since early September. Had he been in post back in April, and had a civil servant perhaps dared to interrupt the latest of his many graphic demonstrations of, “How to drown a badger the proper way” with news of the Chalara infection, he might have acted immediately, and not with a consultation but with an immediate import ban and a public information campaign. Yet, when the ministerial car dropped him at DEFRA for the first time 10 weeks ago, and he walked into his new office clutching his good luck card from the Northern Ireland Office and his Brian May dartboard, was he even briefed as to the seriousness of this infestation? If he was, did he even ask officials’ advice as to whether he could end the consultation early and impose an immediate ash import ban? Did he even question the reasons behind having a consultation in the first place? Surely he recognised that every day the consultation lasted was an extra day in which the Chalara spores could, and certainly would, spread.

On Friday 2 November, seven months after Ministers were told, the Secretary of State finally found time in his diary to convene a Cobra meeting to come up with a plan to respond to the disease. But on the same day he used the functions and resources of his private office and the civil service to write an exclusive briefing letter for the eyes of colleagues on the Government side of the House only. That explains to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) why the words he read out were completely new to Opposition Members. We were not worthy of receiving this great letter from the Secretary of State—only Conservative and Lib Dem MPs were. I ask the Under-Secretary, because I know him to be a reasonable man, whether he honestly believes that when his boss decides to brief only Conservative and Lib Dem MPs, that is a proper action for a Secretary of State to take. I think I know what the answer will be publicly, but the Under-Secretary is an honourable and understanding gentleman, and I am sure that he understands that that was a gross disservice to the House. This is not an issue that demands a secretive, high-handed approach. This is an issue that demands that everybody involved from the top of government to the general public, and everybody from across the political spectrum, pulls together and takes the necessary steps to fight against a destructive and devastating disease. With that in mind, will the Under-Secretary now promise to keep Opposition Members informed throughout this process? Everyone in this House has a right to know what is going on, as do our constituents.

On the topic of sharing intelligence, why was advice to tree growers and the public on the best way to spot the disease and prevent it from spreading not issued immediately after Chalara’s presence in the UK was confirmed? Does the Minister seriously believe that the delay was acceptable? Is he telling the House that if he could turn back the clock, he would do the same thing all over again? What early estimates has the Department made of the cost to the Exchequer of fighting this disease? The Minister of State said that lessons will be learned. How can lessons be learned if no mistakes have been made? If mistakes have been made, what mistakes were they? I have no doubt that Ministers will do what they always do whenever the Opposition have the bare-faced cheek to oppose them on anything: blame the last Labour government—I prefer the phrase “most recent Labour Government” to “last Labour Government”. But perplexing as it is, these Ministers are in government and we are not, and it is they who, at least occasionally, must take responsibility for the running of the country. If they do not blame us—and they will—they will blame something else, such as the weather or the wind. Science says that it is a possibility that the spores were blown across the sea from the continent to the UK. That small possibility has been turned by every Government MP into a cast-iron fact; it is a “fact” that is simply not supported by science.

Ministers have a great deal to answer for. That is less a partisan political point than a simple statement of democratic principle: this happened on their watch and it is not good enough for them to try to wriggle out of the responsibility they bear. The inaction, the dithering and the delay Ministers have shown is tantamount to a dereliction of duty, and the mishandling of this sorry episode is symptomatic of the dearth of leadership and the abundance of incompetence inside the Department. Government inaction has left our forests exposed. Government ineptitude has put us in the terrible situation where the disease is beyond containment and spreading rapidly. It is now the Government’s duty to face up to their responsibilities, admit that they got this one wrong and work towards overcoming the huge environmental, economic and ecological impact this terrible disease will inevitably bring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Harris Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I respect the hon. Gentleman for his independence of judgment but—I am sorry—we disagree. The science is clear: after nine years there was a 28% reduction in the culled area. If we look at New Zealand, Australia or the Republic of Ireland—I talked to a farmer in France on Monday—we see that there is not a single country that is struggling with TB in its cattle industry that is not bearing down on wildlife and cattle, and we will do that.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State blames the NFU for stopping the cull and the media blame No.10, but either way we can all understand the Secretary of State’s reluctance to take responsibility for this setback. May I ask him, on a scale of one to 100—I know that is a risky prospect, as arithmetic is not his Department’s strongest suit—how likely it is that the cull will go ahead next June?

[Mr Paterson]

I am not blaming anybody. I have been working very closely with the NFU since I took office. I have been studying this issue since I was the shadow spokesman and put down 600 questions, taking a serious, detailed interest in it. This is the right policy. It is the policy pursued by every other country, as I have said. Unlike with the vapid pronouncements we have had from the Opposition, this Government will take on a deadly disease, which is a zoonosis, so if we do not get a grip on it, it will prove a risk to human beings.

Fish Discards

Tom Harris Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of the timings of any discard or land-all obligation. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom’s ambitions were greater than some of the dates in the proposal. They are only proposed dates, but I can assure her that they are considerably better than some of the dates being discussed in the wee small hours, which could definitely, and quite rightly, be construed as slippage or kicking the issue into the long grass.

Let us look closely at the dates. Unfortunately, the reform will not be in place until the end of 2013, but from 1 January 2014 there will be implementation of a discard ban on herring, mackerel and other pelagic stocks. The year 2015 will see the emergence of white fish land-all obligations, so we will be well ahead with many stocks in many fisheries ahead of the 2016 date, which was seen by many as the measure. However, some will not come in until 2018, as my hon. Friend says. Many of the fishermen in her constituency and elsewhere dislike the top-down management of fisheries for a variety of reasons, but often because of the controls that are imposed, such as catch composition measures and effort controls. A lot of those are incompatible with discards, so we have secured in the text a commitment to remove those where possible. I look forward to working through the detail of that.

On maximum sustainable yield, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is the international obligation to fish to MSY by 2015 where possible. The difference now is that we are proposing that what was a political statement should be a legal requirement. That is a major step forward. On the regionalised approach, it has to be said that when we were starting this reform process, the UK was a lone voice in calling for an end to the top-down management of fisheries. We now have allies and have got that into the text, which is a major achievement. Let us look at what this means for the small, inshore fleets. Like all fishermen, what they want most of all are more fish to catch. Fishing to MSY will mean that fish stocks will recover faster and better, so there will be more fish in the sea for such fleets to exploit. They will also see an end to the system that my hon. Friend described in which eliminator panels sit in a particular net and mesh sizes are decided perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles away from the seas in which those fishermen fish. This is a major step forward. There is much more work to be done and I assure her that it will not be through any lack of effort if we do not get precisely what we want in the text.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying how disappointed I am that this important issue is being dealt with through an urgent question rather than a formal statement by the Government?

There are elements of this agreement that will be welcomed on this side of the House and throughout the country, chief among them being the agreement in principle on a ban on the shameful practice of discards. However, any deadlines that were discussed were vague and did not feature explicitly in the final agreement. Why was this? Can the Minister tell the House if Tuesday’s meeting ended with a comprehensive vote including all participating members? A commitment without a deadline is no commitment at all. Without a legally enforceable deadline, what assurances can the Government give that the practice of discards will indeed end in the time scale he envisages? The Minister told The Guardian on Monday that as he entered negotiations in Luxembourg, the Government had

“still not fully worked out its position”

regarding a deadline. That is an extraordinary approach to negotiations. Does the Minister really believe that to achieve the best outcome from negotiations we should announce in advance that we have no position—that we have not made mind up our mind about what we want?

On the regionalisation of fisheries policy, will the Minister explain what practical differences will be made to the common fisheries policy that will represent an improvement on the previous one? The big disappointment is the potentially devastating delay until 2020 of a commitment to reach sustainable levels of fishing stock, which will mean another eight years of guaranteed overfishing. Tragically, once again politics has trumped science. Does the Minister agree that a failure to rebuild fish stocks more quickly will damage the UK fishing industry, particularly inshore fleets at the low-impact, sustainable end of the industry?

Finally, what measures will the Government put in place to make sure that smaller inshore fishermen and their communities receive a fairer distribution of quotas? The House will give the Minister one cheer for his efforts this week, but the future of our fishing industry and the recovery of our fish stocks are too important to sacrifice to yet another Euro-fudge.

[Richard Benyon]

Let me start by formally welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his position. I look forward to working with him in the coming months on these important issues. He asked about the dates in terms of a discard ban. I should state quite clearly that when I was asked by The Guardian on Monday morning whether I would share the dates I was taking to the negotiations, I had very clear dates in my head, but we have a protocol—a courtesy—that we agree the UK line with all devolved Governments. I was very grateful to have the support of all the devolved Governments in Luxembourg. We had a very good spirit in the UK delegation room—we work well together. We agreed that UK line very clearly and we stuck to it.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was a vote in the plenary meeting of the Council of Ministers. At the end, the Danish presidency, which has been superb throughout—it is a great ally of the British programme, and has led very well—asked people to register any opposition to the proposal. One or two small countries did so, and one or two slightly large countries did so too. We should be under no illusion: there are people who do not want the policy to be reformed, and do not support the United Kingdom’s ambitions on discards, regionalisation and moving to sustainable fisheries. It is up to our colleagues from all parties in the European Parliament to make sure that a robust position is maintained and that the Council of Ministers continues to push on the deadlines that we have asked for.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the measure means for a regionalised approach. I am really pleased that the United Kingdom position has been adopted, and we pushed right through to the end to make sure that if a group of countries fishing in a sea basin decides on the details of measures that are currently decided in the Commission but which will in future be decided in those regionalised groups, the Commission can then implement that. In the original text, there was a clear indication that other measures could be imposed by the Commission in that process. We want to make sure that where countries agree, we have a truly regionalised position—a truly bottom-up system of managing our fisheries—and I think that will be welcomed.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about our dates on maximum sustainable yield. We want to stick to our Johannesburg commitment, which was a political commitment, and make it a legal commitment so that we fish to MSY by 2015 where possible. He accepts that the science is not always clear, but we want to hold ourselves to account as much as possible. He asks about a fairer distribution among different sectors of the industry. He knows—if he does not, he should—that I have been working extremely hard on this. I want to make sure that we keep all those small ports and creeks that support the local fishing industry in business. There is a social dimension to the management of the industry. We have to maintain the diversity of the fleet, which is not easy, but it is a clear priority for the Government. I hope that he, like his predecessors, will continue to support that.

Dangerous Dogs

Tom Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on relating to us in graphic and harrowing detail the incident that inspired him to apply for this debate. It is rare to hear a contribution that warrants an 18 certificate.

The debate provides a timely opportunity to discuss the Government’s policy on tackling irresponsible dog ownership and strengthening dog control. It is worth saying at the outset that if the Government get this right, they will have our full support. It may be appropriate to mention briefly a former colleague. Until 2010, Joan Humble was the Labour MP for Blackpool North and Fleetwood. Last month, while campaigning for a Labour candidate, the tip of her wedding ring finger was bitten off when she posted a leaflet through a letter box. I know that the House will want to send its best wishes to her for a speedy recovery.

I note from a report on the BBC news website that the esteemed Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), began her political career by being bitten by an Alsatian during an early campaign, but I am sure that she has now recovered from that.

The Government announced their proposals to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership on 23 April. Before speaking about them in more depth, I want to pay tribute to the work of two organisations that have already been mentioned and which have done some outstanding work in this field. First, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association spends up to £50,000 to train a single dog to a high enough standard to serve a blind person, yet every week those animals are subject to vicious attacks by aggressive dogs on the public highway, often dogs that are nominally under the control of their owners. Those attacks frequently result in the guide dog being injured, and even retired. By nature and training, they are passive animals, and their first instinct is to protect their owners, not themselves. Yet criminal sanctions against irresponsible dog owners are very rare, leaving guide dogs and their owners constantly at risk without the protection of the law. I hope that in his response the Minister will give a commitment to address that injustice.

Secondly, I pay tribute to the Communication Workers Union, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has already referred, and to the Bite Back campaign spearheaded by its national health, safety and environment officer, Dave Joyce. The union has welcomed the recently reviewed sentencing guidelines for dog attacks, but makes the serious point that in future the law must apply to private property as that is where 70% of dog attacks on postal workers take place. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not cover attacks that take place on private property, which means that traumatised and vulnerable victims are forced to seek recourse through the civil courts. Like Guide Dogs for the Blind, the CWU is concerned at the low level of convictions as a result of attacks. If the Government intend to extend the law on that issue—and I understand that they do—I hope that there will be no further delay.

In government, Labour recognised that there were problems with the existing legislation on dangerous dogs, and in March 2010 we began a consultation on tightening the law. We worked with the police, veterinarians, canine and animal welfare groups and trade unions on a range of powers needed to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. That consultation ended in June 2010, but it took nearly two years for the coalition Government to respond. During that time, more than 5,000 patients were admitted to hospital because of injuries caused by dog attacks in England and Wales, and nearly 10,000 postal workers were injured by domestic dogs. Each month, more than seven guide dogs have been, and continue to be, attacked by dogs that are out of control. Those figures are startling enough, but over the past year, police forces in England and Wales have spent more than £3 million on kennelling dogs that have been seized under the 1991 Act.

Between 2004-05 and 2010, the number of out-of-control dogs seized by the Metropolitan Police Authority rose from 27 to more than 1,100. Scotland and Northern Ireland have already implemented their own dog control laws, and Wales is reviewing the issue—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn is taking a close interest. There have been many traumatic and violent attacks over the past two years, most recently the case of five Metropolitan police officers who were savagely attacked by a dog, curiously enough named “Poison”, as they attempted to arrest its owner. My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) heard at first hand a horrifying testimony from the father of a little girl from Chingford whose ear had been chewed off in an unrestrained dog attack in a public park.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk pointed out, about 20 organisations, including the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Kennel Club, the CWU, the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers, want the Government to live up to the Prime Minister’s promise to target irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs. Labour, and all those affected by dog attacks, also want to see that promise fulfilled. This is about promoting responsible dog ownership and tackling irresponsible, incompetent and sometimes outright dangerous owners, as well as about the dogs themselves.

On 14 March 2012, my shadow ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, wrote to the Secretary of State stating:

“I can assure you that Labour will support any measures that support animal welfare charities, unions, the Police and others in preventing unnecessary dog attacks and tackling the scourge of irresponsible dog ownership.”

Sadly, however, the proposals announced last month fell overwhelmingly short of expectations, and there were few who welcomed them with any vigour or delight. We have noted the announcements in the White Paper on antisocial behaviour, and I will return to that shortly.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the CWU, summed up the mood perfectly when he questioned why there was another delay caused by yet another consultation. He said:

“We’ve had a comprehensive consultation, there’s cross-party support, now we need action.”

The chief executive of the RSPCA, Gavin Grant, said that the proposals “lack bite”, although I do not know whether the pun was intended. Claire Horton, chief executive of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, said that the proposals were a “wasted opportunity”, and Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive of Dogs Trust, claimed that the Government are

“just tinkering round the edges.”

We welcome the extension—albeit delayed—of the law to cover attacks on private property, and the Government are making the right noises about a phased introduction of microchipping. However, the fact that we are to have more consultations has been criticised heavily, not least in the debate today, and there is no clear timetable for the implementation of the proposals. Furthermore, there is nothing in DEFRA’s proposals to help prevent dog attacks.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. I shall try to be brief and I hope that he will address these points today. If not, I hope that he will make a commitment to write to me with the answers. A new and additional consultation on microchipping has been announced. When will that end and when will the proposals be put into action? It is only right that the Minister makes clear the timetable for implementation. There are four existing microchip databases. Will the Minister explain how it will be made easier for law enforcement agencies, vets, animal welfare charities and dog wardens to cut through that confusion? Will the databases be streamlined, and will there be any compulsion for bodies to co-operate and share information?

As we know, information currently stored on dog microchips is often out of date. Owners have passed away or moved on and not informed the database, or else they simply deny that the dog is theirs. What measures will the Minister introduce to ensure that microchips are updated on a regular basis, and that the last recorded owners take responsibility for their dog? If the legislation is not tightened up, then short of being useful for restoring dogs to responsible owners, the database will do nothing to tackle irresponsible owners.

What discussions has the Minister had with animal welfare charities and others to make microchipping low-cost or zero-cost, and to make it apply beyond registered breeders, thereby driving programmes into other areas where the benefits of and need for microchipping and wider animal welfare advice are clear? What effect will the proposals for microchipping puppies from legitimate registered dog breeders have on the wider issue of unregistered or back-street breeders, surplus puppies from accidental litters, and the sale of puppies on the internet? Does the Minister accept that a large part of the ownership problem, and the tide of untraceable dogs that wash up in animal welfare charities, is unlikely to be affected simply by microchipping the products of registered puppy farms? The proposals are a welcome development, but how will they deal with the wider issue? The extension of the law on dangerous dogs to cover private property will require changes to primary legislation. When and how will that be done? We need certainty and clarity, neither of which has been forthcoming in ministerial announcements or in the Queen’s Speech.

The broad coalition of groups to which I have referred made a specific demand for measures that will prevent attacks from taking place. Such measures would reduce the costs of kennelling and euthanasia, thousands and thousands of NHS treatments in A and E units and GP surgeries, as well as days of work lost by front-line workers. Part of that is to do with early intervention and educating owners about responsible ownership. The limited programme that the Minister has announced is welcome but it is pygmy-esque given the scale of intervention required.

The Home Office White Paper on antisocial behaviour includes proposals that are aimed at tackling irresponsible dog ownership. The Home Office has rejected any dog-specific power, but stated that it will continue to work with relevant groups, including the police, in finalising proposals that will be of maximum benefit in dealing with dog-related antisocial behaviour. We are studying the proposals closely, but will the Minister guarantee that they will not become a dodgy doggy ASBO to be flouted and ignored? Many people want to see specific dog control notices. Does the Minister know why the Home Office rejected that idea?

What discussions has the Minister had with Home Office colleagues about these proposals, and does he know how acceptable behaviour order and community protection notices will be enforced? Has he made any assessment of what impact the proposals will have in preventing dog attacks? Does he know how many attacks will be prevented, and can he assure us that Ministers across his Department and the Home Office are working collaboratively to tackle out-of-control dogs and irresponsible dog ownership? In short, are Ministers barking up the same tree? [Interruption.]—Yes, I apologise.

We need joined-up government to make safety on the streets a reality, and I urge the Government to listen to the views of those who have come together to promote responsible dog ownership. Most importantly, I urge the Minister to get on with implementing the measures and put them in place as soon as possible.