Oral Answers to Questions
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Zac Goldsmith)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I commend Harrogate Borough Council. The National Trust has said that a child today is three times more likely to go to hospital for falling out of bed than falling out of a tree. Obviously I do not recommend either activity, but there is no doubt that children who are insulated from nature are losing out; I very much agree with him. Working with the Woodland Trust and community forests, we are on track to meet our target of planting 1 million trees at English primary schools by 2020, and we committed in the 25-year environment plan to encourage children to be closer to nature in and out of school. The last week of November is National Tree Week, and I strongly encourage Members to plant trees with their local schools, so that we can all celebrate together.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, our careers have been somewhat in parallel. I had a slight interregnum in the middle of your speakership, but I am pleased to be here today, to top and tail it. We have remained good friends throughout.
The Government committed to keeping the current level of farm spending until the end of this Parliament, which will be in the next couple of days. The Labour party will commit to keep that level of spending and, indeed, even spending more under the new system, which will be expensive to introduce. Will the Government make that commitment?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman is right; the Government are committed to keep spending exactly the same until the end of this Parliament. He will have to wait to see our manifesto to find out what will happen in the next Parliament, but I will simply say this. It is implicit in the Agriculture Bill that there will be a transition over a period of seven years, during which we will roll out the new policy, and we have already committed to fund the objectives of the Agriculture Bill.
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Davies. I welcome the Minister to his place. It is nice to have someone else in the Government to respond to; I usually respond to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I used to respond to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill).
This is an incredible narrow statutory instrument; we are talking about two cases a year. What about the 95% of vets who come from elsewhere in the EU and who keep our abattoirs going? Without those vets being in place, the line stops. If this is a precedent for the Republic of Ireland, it would be useful to know what is going to happen with all the other vets. We need to be clear where we are going to get our supply of vets if they are not going to come from elsewhere in the EU.
We will not oppose this statutory instrument, because it is common sense that we recognise the competences of other countries. Given the fact that vets from the Republic can work in the north, and vets in the north can work in the Republic, two seems a very low number. I imagine there is much more transferability on the island of Ireland. It would be interesting to know whether this is just the people who do not have the qualifications, and whether there are many more who have common qualifications, because as far as I know, veterinary schools recruit both north and south. How many people would be affected anyway? As I said, slaughterhouses are entirely dependent on people from outside the UK in the main, Ireland being slightly different.
It is important to bear in mind that this is part of a wider debate—I will not stray too far, you will be pleased to know, Mr Davies. The British Veterinary Association, in which I declare an interest as an associate, is very clear about the need to introduce stunning of all animals killed at slaughter. It would be worth while exploring where we are on this whole issue. We had a petition debate, and it is something that some of us feel very strongly about. I know about halal and shechita religious exemptions, but it important that we have some way of knowing that the Government have in hand the direction of travel that the general public want us to take, which is that only animals that are stunned are slaughtered, and that they are willing to talk to the Jewish community and the Muslim community to see if there is at least some compromise.
Another important point is that we discussed and passed measures on CCTV in slaughterhouses in previous SI Committees. I submitted a written question about how far we are from making sure that all slaughterhouses have CCTV and that someone is examining it to make sure that the practice is in place. I know that that is slightly away from the issue of competences, but we need to discuss how the operation of slaughterhouses can be as transparent as possible. It is no good having competences in place if we do not expect the highest standards from people. The most difficult bit of the meat trade is that animals are slaughtered, and we would hope they are slaughtered as humanely as possible. That is common across all those vets who supervise the process, but more particularly, those foreign vets on whom we rely to a very great extent. The question from the Opposition will always be: where is the alternative? As far as I can see, unless those vets seek settlement, we will have a serious problem.
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer organisations and Wine) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and delighted to have this latest CMO debate. I was getting withdrawal symptoms. In fact, I had to demand of the Whip that I was put on the Committee, such is my need to discuss the common organisation of markets at least two or three times a week.
Where do the regulations fit in the great panoply of debates we are having on CMOs? The Government say we cannot consolidate such legislation, but we seem to be having the same debate, perhaps on a different sector, time after time. It would be interesting to know why some of these debates could not have been put together, at least for the benefit of those struggling to understand these different sectors.
I will not rehearse the arguments we have had time after time, but I have some specific questions for the Minister. How was the nine-month time limit arrived at? That seems a peculiar, arbitrary figure. Why not a year or six months?
The regulations are on imports of wine, so we are not looking at the impact on exports. However, we are an exporter of wine, and clearly if we take particular lines of action with regard to imports, we can expect those EU nations to which we export to look at what we do and take retaliatory action. What impact assessment has been undertaken on the export of British wine? There is a growing market for British wine, which is now well known and, indeed, well loved in certain parts of the world.
It is intriguing that the “Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food” appears in the explanatory notes. It is nice to look back sometimes. I thought we had killed the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the Minister has obviously reincarnated it—even though the explanatory notes say he is in DEFRA.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman referred, I think inadvertently, to British wine, but “British wine” is generally used to describe a product made from imported grape juice, which would not be protected in this way. I think he probably meant to refer to English wine—or even Welsh or Scottish wine, if there is such a thing—which would be protected.
Dr Drew
I stand corrected. I was just using that nomenclature, but, given the way we are all going, we may have to get used to being very definite in how we refer to things—English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or whatever form it takes. The point is that there must be some impact on our potential exports, because we are changing the rules somewhat, and the length of time is quite intriguing.
Page 13 of the instrument refers to how organisations can sign up to a scheme. I am intrigued: is this a new process, or are we carrying it across from the EU? If it is a new process, who will arbitrate to ensure that shareholdings are appropriately held and that organisations are transparent in what they apply for? There is quite a rigorous and—dare I say it?—robust application scheme, so it would be interesting to know whether we are initiating it or carrying it across—as it has been, or as it could have been—given that our status with the EU is at best uncertain.
Page 16 is the most difficult page because it is full of acronyms, and I do not quite understand what it tells me. Regulation 6(16), for example, relates to TPOs, APOs and TAPOs, and we are bringing in different definitions of how those organisations will be referred to. Page 16 has left me in the dark as much as any of our debates on CMOs, of which we have had many. I would be interested to know how the Minister sees it. I understand this will be the law, but if someone were to ask for my advice on what it really means, I would not be quite sure what to say. Will the Minister say more about what we are replacing, how we are replacing it and what we are replacing it with?
In its own way, this is a very minor piece of legislation, but the issue is how it fits together. This is an amendment, so it would be interesting to know why we have to discuss the subject again, unless the EU has moved forward in this area—that is quite possible. It would be useful to know why the Government think we now have it right and will not be discussing it again. Much as I would love to discuss the CMO for the next few days, it is important that we get this on the record and get it right, and that we understand that it is right, and that people whose livelihoods will be affected can know what the regime will look like and can react accordingly.
George Eustice
I start by answering this question of where the draft regulations fit within the wide panoply—as the hon. Member for Stroud described it—of CMO regulations. The CMO is a highly complex body of law, as he and any of us in such Committees have discovered. It is a big jigsaw, but I assure him that it all fits together neatly, once we bring together all the different SIs.
For a number of reasons, we have had to do the SIs in different stages: sometimes because certain matters are reserved and others devolved, so at times two SIs must cover broadly similar areas; in other instances because different provisions within the CMO have not all been dealt with at the same time; and sometimes there have been time issues, when certain matters have been unresolved or still subject to discussion and so left until later in the process. The reason we are discussing this again, although we have discussed the CMO many times, is that these regulations fall into that last category.
There was discussion with the devolved Administrations earlier this year on exactly which matters were reserved and which devolved. These are the matters we have decided and agreed are reserved, which is why we made this instrument[Official Report, 30 October 2019, Vol. 667, c. 2MC.]. Later today, a separate SI will deal with some of the devolved issues in a similar space—
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman, who was corrected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, made an important point about the export of English wine, as well as Welsh and other such wines. They are increasingly successful overseas, and the growing export market for English sparkling wine in particular has been a big success story. However, as I said in my opening remarks, organic certification recognition and other regimes are one of a number of areas where the European Union is maintaining the position that it will not discuss such matters until after we have left on 1 November. Inevitably, therefore, in the short term there would be an air gap in such areas, but all of them—including ensuring that we expedite the recognition of certification documents for English wine entering the EU market—are on a list of priorities that we will seek to progress as quickly as possible.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of page 13, annex 8, which is simply about the anti-avoidance criteria. Those are in a fairly generic form that has been used previously. He also mentioned page 16 and, on reading that page, the document seems to me to be largely about interpretation of EU documents. However, to answer his direct question, in all these SIs we are moving functions currently exercised by the European Commission to be exercised instead by—since these are all reserved areas—the Secretary of State.
I hope that I have managed to address some of the particular issues raised by the shadow Minister—
Dr Drew
I accept what the Minister has said. Clearly this is a specialist area, but no specialist wine producers were included in the consultation. Will he assure me that he has talked to the industry about the impact of some of the changes? I dare say that will include retailers, who will presumably be interested to know how they will get their French, Spanish and Italian wines.
George Eustice
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have had extensive discussions with the UK hospitality industry and its trade body—which we meet weekly—and more widely with agrifood stakeholder groups, which we have also met. As we progressed our plans for a potential no-deal Brexit, they have been fully engaged. At one point, they had been concerned that we might not have a transitional period of nine months. We gave some consideration to whether we should, in the first instance, offer that unilaterally to the European Union or whether we should seek mutual reciprocation.
In the event, in this and virtually every other area, the Government took the view that we should adopt a continuity approach for at least six months. In this instance—I know the hon. Gentleman asks about this a lot—we felt that a nine-month transition was consistent with what we said about giving six months of continuity, when not much would change at all, while recognising that bottles need to be labelled in a particular way. To give people the extra time, we chose to go for nine months in this particular instance.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have consulted widely with the industry, which is reassured that we are offering this grace period on wine. On that basis, I hope the Committee will support this statutory instrument.
Common Agricultural Policy (Market Measures, Notifications and Direct Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and delighted that yet again we are talking about CMOs—only for the second time tonight. We did have a break in the Committee in between.
I am intrigued why the same explanatory memorandum has been used for these regulations and for those that we considered earlier, the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Given that the memorandum is the same, I do not understand why we could not have conflated the two statutory instruments. I know that they relate to different market sectors, but unless I am wrong, the present instrument refers to wine as well as other sectors, although it is more all-embracing. I meant to ask that question in our earlier debate, but it slipped my mind.
The point that I really want to raise is about the mechanism for charging. Paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“Defra has decided not to issue this instrument free of charge to all known recipients of SI 2019/828 as, given the nature of the correcting provisions in this instrument and the proportion that they represent of the whole instrument, it would be disproportionate to apply the free issue procedure to SI 2019/828.”
If it is not being offered free, what is the charging mechanism and who is paying? Presumably we are talking about producer organisations, as in the previous SI, but it would be interesting to know a little more about what the mechanism involves. Will it be fundamentally different if we leave the EU, or will it be a similar funding arrangement?
We are back to our old friend the common organisation of the markets. Will the Minister say more about direct payments, which are in the title of the regulations? What exactly will be, or could be, owed to farmers if and when we leave the EU? Presumably the money will come out of pillar 1, but what will happen to those who are owed money under pillar 2? Will they be subject to a different statutory instrument or a completely different regime? It would be useful to know exactly what the procedures are for compensating those farmers, owners or producers with what they will be owed if we change the status of the arrangements that they are subject to.
Finally, the explanatory memorandum gives the usual list of consultees—we get used to reading the same thing in explanatory memorandums, because they look very similar. The statutory instrument is pretty all-embracing. It applies to the devolved Administrations, does it not?
Dr Drew
It would be interesting to know what specific consultations have taken place with Scotland and Wales, or even with Northern Ireland, given that there is no one to consult with, as we know from our debate on the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. That is why those regulations were made: because the UK Government have had to take on the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which are not in existence at the moment.
I have no specific or overall concerns about the regulations, so the Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not vote against them. However, no doubt it would be of public interest to get some clarity on what is being paid to whom, and to ensure that nobody loses out—particularly as the regulations imply that people will be making contributions towards their involvement as producer organisations.
George Eustice
I hope that I can deal with the shadow Minister’s concerns. Paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum relates to the free issue of hard copies of the instrument. The reason for our approach is that the regulations do not make policy changes; as we have discussed many times, they simply make minor changes to make existing policy operable. We will not be giving out free hard copies of the SI, but obviously it is available to anybody who wants to see it.
Why do we have one explanatory memorandum but two statutory instruments? The regulations that we considered earlier relate exclusively to reserved matters, whereas the present regulations are about devolved matters, so we needed two statutory instruments. However, they both address generally the same topic, so we chose to cover them in a single explanatory memorandum.
The shadow Minister asked how the direct payments process works. As always with the CAP, some of the matters involved are complicated. The financial discipline mechanism, as it is called in EU terminology, applies only to pillar 1. Under that mechanism, each year the European Union top-slices the pillar 1 budget, which normally goes out in the basic payment scheme. It typically takes about 1.5% of the budget and holds it in the crisis reserve; should there be a major market disruption in dairy or something else during the year, that top-sliced crisis reserve will fund interventions in the market such as buying up skimmed milk powder.
Under the SI, the money top-sliced in the last scheme year will be reimbursed to farmers the next year if it is unused. If there is no crisis against which the money needs to be used, it goes back into the pot for the following year. That is how the EU system works; we are simply putting it beyond doubt that if there is unused money in the crisis reserve, we will add it as a top-up to next year’s BPS payment, even though we will be outside the European Union.
Finally, the shadow Minister asked whether the devolved Administrations had been involved. I can confirm that they absolutely have. The regulations relate to matters of devolved competence. We have had discussions with the Administrations; although we are legislating UK-wide, it is with their consent.
I hope that I have been able to address the shadow Minister’s points. I welcome the fact that he does not intend to press the regulations to a vote.
Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. This is the second of the three statutory instruments that we must consider today and the only one not about the CMO, the common organisation of agricultural markets, about which some of us have become quite knowledgeable.
Were the Northern Ireland Assembly sitting, would this SI have come before this Committee, or is it here entirely because—the Minister seems to nod, but he can answer when he sums up—the Assembly is not sitting? Will the Assembly recapture this responsibility as and when it does sit again? It is important that we know what we are doing here. Most of what we do relates to wider UK responsibilities, even though agriculture is a devolved function.
Scottish National party Members have made it clear in Delegated Legislation Committees that they do not necessarily agree with some of the ways in which these measures are debated. Sadly, we have no representative from the Democratic Unionist party with us. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) came to the earlier Committee—and we sent him away. It would be interesting to know his party’s position on these changes.
I have a number of reasonably detailed questions for the Minister. The regulations amend two Northern Ireland statutory rules and four Northern Ireland orders, and we have eight headings of regulatory change identified, but it is not at all clear which changes apply to which headings and how they fit in with existing Northern Ireland regulations. It would be useful to know exactly what we are dealing with; otherwise we may have to come back again, to amend the amendments to the amendments, as we have done in the past. It would be useful at least to know what we are amending and why. As I said, there are eight different pieces of regulatory change to two statutory rules and four orders. Where do they all fit?
These are important regulations dealing with pathogens and seeds and plant propagating material, which have quite an impact on Northern Ireland. The obvious question is, to what extent will this be affected by the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement? Materials of those types could be transported, whether deliberately or accidentally, so who is responsible for ensuring that we allow the proper trade to take place but that someone deals with risk material? Of course, there are arrangements now, but those are within the EU, and we are dealing now with a completely new situation. With a border in the Irish sea, how will that trade be policed and these regulations enforced? Which organisation will take that on and who will hold that organisation to account?
It would be interesting to know why the transitional period is 21 months. In the earlier Committee, on wine, the period was nine months. We seem to be getting a differentiated picture on transitionary arrangements. How was that term arrived at? Who will oversee the transitionary arrangements to ensure they are being adhered to? What will occur if, for any reason, there is slippage,? Will we have to revisit the regulations, or is there a degree of flexibility in the arrangements?
These regulations are more straightforward than those considered by the earlier Committee, perhaps because they relate directly to one part of the United Kingdom—an important part of the United Kingdom. As always, the explanatory memorandum says:
“There is no significant impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”
One presumes that there will be some impact because of the nature of the changes to be introduced. I wonder what analysis the Government have undertaken. Again, no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken, but someone somewhere must understand that there will be some impact. It would be useful to know what consultation has been undertaken.
I was in Northern Ireland a year ago talking to DAERA officials. I felt sympathy for them: they are having to pass all political decisions up the line, which is presumably why we are here today discussing this instrument, so that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes that responsibility. Again, however, that will not help the officials with the day-to-day administration of some quite complex regulation, even though, as I have said, it is a bit more transparent than some things we dealt with earlier and, no doubt, than what we shall deal with later when we reach our third Delegated Legislation Committee of the day.
It would be interesting at least to know from the Minister who—given that there is no Assembly or Executive—is discussing the impact of the measures. I do not know that much about the egg trade in Northern Ireland, but I know a bit about the poultry trade and the importance of chicken meat through Moy Park, which is a major exporter. I wonder who, within Northern Ireland, has had the opportunity to express their views on the sorts of changes that are taking place, and to make sure that the Government are aware of some of the implications, particularly given the currency of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. Has the matter really been worked through?
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
One organisation that has spoken clearly and vociferously on the matter is the Ulster Farmers Union, which has asked for much more clarity about the new relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in relation to the provisions set out in the withdrawal agreement. It has been equally clear that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for farming across the UK, but particularly in Northern Ireland.
Dr Drew
I have met Mr Ferguson on a number of occasions and he has made that very point to me. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us of an organisation that one would expect to be consulted and conferred with, and that would have to be listened to. It would be interesting to know, given the lack of an Assembly and Executive, who the UK Government have talked to about some pretty important elements that need to be clear before we nod the measure through.
Northern Ireland is different from Wales and Scotland, which have their own Administrations and devolved responsibilities. Northern Ireland has not, so effectively we are acting on behalf of that part of the United Kingdom. We therefore have to make sure that the measure is right. I hope that the Minister can allay any fears, because there is another statutory instrument to be considered tomorrow morning. It will probably be a bit more controversial than the one before us now, but we will again be acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly—or will we not? I go back to my original point. If the Assembly had been in place, would we not have debated the measures, given that it would have had the responsibility of seeing them through? It is important to know those things and have them explained on the record, at least.
TB in Cattle and Badgers
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). What she said was very measured. [Interruption.] I do not know whether a debate is still going on—that is always better than comments sotto voce. My hon. Friend presented the case very well, so I will not go over what she said. Hon. Members will disagree on the way in which this terrible disease is currently being fought.
Of course, we are all in favour of eradicating bovine TB. My area has suffered from it more than most. I have seen what it does to both cattle and badgers, and anyone who does not believe that it is an awful disease does not know much about it. However, we will disagree on how we go about eradication—including the notion of when we will eradicate it, if we ever can. We have to hope we can, but that is at least questionable.
I shall start with what we know—and I will congratulate the Government. They were brave, given all the pressure that they came under, not to extend the cull to Derbyshire, because it is worthwhile looking at different models. I shall also start by saying that I think we could learn from what has happened in Wales. I heard what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds) said, but the Welsh Government have taken a fundamentally different approach. I do not know enough about what the Scottish Government have done, but I hope that the UK Government are open to the suggestion that we can bear down on this disease in different ways. Wales, with its concentration on herd breakdown, has shown us at least some very different notions of what we can do.
Let me go back to what Labour did when we were in government. It is a bit of a myth that we did not spend an awful lot of time on this disease: we did, including through the work of John Krebs. I recall that one of Krebs’s conclusions was that killing badgers would make no significant difference to the spread of bovine TB in cattle. That was borne out by the independent expert panel, under John Bourne. We put serious resources into that, and it is where we got to understand the perturbation effect. All the scientists who were associated with it have come down very strongly against the current, privatised cull, given the potential damage that it does, with the spread outwards of this disease because of the perturbation effect.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. He is aware of the latest figures, which show very clearly that in Gloucestershire, far from there being a perturbation effect, the opposite has actually been the case: there has been a reduction in the level of the disease on the edge of the cull areas.
Dr Drew
Let me come to that later, because I will point out something slightly different.
We have had the two articles, and they are articles; they are not necessarily anything other than a position taken by both Brunton and Downs. Brunton used the findings given to her by APHA and she made the point that
“to use the findings of this analysis to develop generalisable inferences about the effectiveness of the policy at present”
was at least questionable. Downs was more definitive and did say that there was some strong evidence, in her opinion, that the cull was working. But this is where I disagree with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). The current figures from Gloucestershire have shown an upward spike, in both incidence and prevalence, in the cull area. This is the problem with this disease: it is not a disease that can easily be measured in terms of one policy. My fear about the Government is that they have gone along the badger cull route as the main policy.
With regard to where we are, the one real criticism that I have of this Government is that I think it is outrageous that MPs are not allowed to know where culling is taking place. I recently had an incident locally that was about culling on the edge of the Woodchester Park area. Anyone who knows anything, and certainly those who have studied the matter, will know that Woodchester Park has spent more time than most of us have had hot dinners in trying to understand how the badger population is affected by bovine TB and in looking at the relationship—the transmission mechanism—between badgers and cattle. Certainly we had some evidence that a badger was shot within that trial area. I know the police will not prosecute, but I hope that the Minister will give me every assurance that there is no possibility of culling, because that would throw away 40-plus years of how we have been studying those badgers, and we need to keep doing that.
I have been talking about where we are. This, of course, is a stress-based disease. That is why I am quizzical, and want to hear from the Government, about why they have not yet responded to Godfray, because it is right and proper that we do respond to Godfray. We need to understand this issue. My area had a recent incidence of TB caused by the way in which people were putting in a new pipeline. Because they did not move the badger setts properly, five farms have gone down, no doubt because of the stress on the badgers that were moved wrongly and on the cattle, which suffered accordingly. It is important that we understand that a number of different things are involved.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said about slurry. I hope that the Government are looking seriously at the work of Gatcombe, down in Dorset—on the Dorset-Devon border—where Dick Sibley has tried to do things.
Dr Drew
May I just continue? I will never finish my speech otherwise, and the Minister will need quite a lot of time to respond because of the excellent debate that we have had, even if hon. Members do not agree on this issue.
I hope that we are looking at what Sibley has discovered in trying to eradicate this disease from a cattle herd. He has narrowed things down, again, to, dare I say, the impact of slurry being put out on farms. We need to know more about that.
With regard to where else we need to be much better, I think that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) brought up the notion of the Enferplex test. We need to push forward on the different measures. I will be blunt: the SICCT—single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin—test, the skin test, is notoriously unreliable. Far too often, cattle that have the disease are missed. Sometimes they are picked up with the interferongamma test. Again, Gatcombe is doing work with PCR-polymerase chain reaction— and phage.
It is important that we know that these tests are much more accurate. We need to bear down on this disease. I do not want to kill cattle any more than I want to kill badgers. Far too often, cattle are killed that are clean of the disease. But sadly, there are cattle that are not clean of the disease and get through. We still have 14 million cattle movements. It is important that we understand that those movements could be a major cause of the spread of the disease, because if we do not know which cattle have it, as we may not know which badgers have it, and we allow those cattle to travel around the country, that is clearly a real threat.
We need to look at every tool in the box. We will not agree on how this disease is currently being fought, but fought it must be. The Leader of the Opposition offered with equanimity to work with the Government at the end of yesterday’s debate and I would like to work with the Government on this. I would love for the Minister to come to Woodchester Park and look at the implications of what researchers have found there over many years.
I agree with the Prime Minister about the need to end cattle movement—all live exports—in terms of what we send abroad. That could give us an opening. Much of the way in which we have fought this disease has been to do with the need to keep our trade policy “TB-free”. If we maintain that, it is important to understand that this might be a way forward. Thus far we have been within EU rules. That is something we could address.
In conclusion, I would like to work with the Minister. Sadly, previous attempts at cross-party work have not always succeeded, but I make that offer now—and I hope the Minister will take me up on it.
George Eustice
We will look at that evidence, but this is a difficult issue. My right hon. Friend is right that our aim, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed out, is to get the badger population down by 70% in the four years of the cull; it is not our intention at all to eradicate the badger population. This is an issue that we will continue to look at because, as we plot how to get from where we are now to being officially TB-free by 2038, it is clearly an important issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also pointed out some of the challenges of vaccinating badgers and the further challenge that we have had with an oral vaccination. However, if we can use such a vaccination, there are also some advantages. It provides herd immunity and there is some evidence that cubs born in badger populations that have been vaccinated have a higher degree of resistance to the disease than other badgers.
Finally, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about Scotland. The approach taken in Scotland is very similar to the approach that we take in a low-risk area elsewhere. Scotland does not have a large badger population and nor does it have a presence of the disease in the badger population, which is in common with the north of England. Therefore, the nature of the challenge in Scotland is very different from that elsewhere.
The badger population has more than doubled in this country over the last 20 or so years. In the cull areas, which we are targeting because the disease is rife there, we simply look to reduce the badger population by 70% for the duration of the cull.
Dr Drew
The one thing that has not been mentioned—I should have mentioned it myself, of course—is cattle vaccination. Such vaccination was always 10 years away, but I gather that it is now five years away. Are the Weybridge and Pirbright research institutions still working on this vaccination and, if so, can they clarify where they are with that work?
George Eustice
Yes, we are continuing to do cattle vaccinations; that particular research has not been stopped. As the hon. Gentleman says, cattle vaccination is an important line of work and it is one that we intend to continue.
Draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Here we go again. I shall get the Whip to put “CMO” on my gravestone—and I will be there sooner rather than later if we have any more of these debates. We have had so many statutory instruments looking at the common organisation of the markets that we wonder where this one was, whether we have debated it before—perhaps the Minister can provide illumination on that—and whether we will be spending more time on the CMO.
These issues are important, as they involve segments of our agricultural industry. I was intrigued to hear what the Minister said, because it was almost a complete repeat of what was said another time by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. It is good to see the double act still in place, with one on the Front Bench and one on the Back Bench. The one on the Back Bench is sworn to secrecy, because he might be back on the Front Bench soon.
The Minister said that the legislation is technical in nature and limited in scope. One of these days, I will ask: what does that actually mean? All of it seems to be technical in nature and limited in scope, yet we go through it time after time. Why has it not been possible to at least group SIs together, as we have done previously? We seem to be dissecting all these different areas separately. He might be able to say something about that. If nothing else, can he warn us how many more statutory instruments we are likely to get? Clearly, the sands of time are clearly running out. It would be interesting to know what the implications would be of our crashing out by the end of the month—perish the thought—with regard to those statutory instruments we have agreed to, and those we will not have agreed to. There is not infinite time before the end of the month.
I have some fairly basic questions. First, the Minister talks about the Rural Payments Agency being in discussion with the sectors, but what about its level of preparedness? Will it be able to do exactly what has been done through the CAP? If so, will he assure me that payments will continue seamlessly, and that farmers or producers will not be seriously disadvantaged because payments have not been made on time? He knows, as I do, particularly from my time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, that the RPA does not have the best of reputations when it comes to making expeditious payments, or payments that are right in the first instance.
Secondly, in the event of a no-deal exit, what guarantees are there, and what moneys have the Government set aside for payments that are due? I know that we are considering technical issues that do not necessarily tie in with payments, but as they say, “follow the money.” Someone, somewhere, will need to ensure that particular market sectors are not disadvantaged. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what preparations have taken place in different market sectors for dealing with the RPA in the immediate aftermath of no deal. There is also the question of whether market sectors will be protected, because some will be subject to duties or a fair degree of competition from outside. It is important to know exactly how they will be able to respond.
It would be useful to know how many more such statutory instruments we are likely to get. We had two on the agenda, but the Northern Ireland one has slipped; it would be interesting to know why. I saw the two as naturally connected; one followed on from the other. The position in Northern Ireland is particular. Why was that SI dropped at fairly short notice? When I came in this morning, after doing massive amounts of preparation for the debate that was to take place at 6 o’clock, I found that there was no such debate. Where has that SI got to? Are proceedings on it in train, or do we not need to debate it because circumstances have overtaken it? Perhaps the statement that will be made in the House shortly, about possibly getting the Assembly back in place, has something to do with it. I do not know. I hope the Minister can say something about the SI that we would have been considering.
We will not object to this largely technical instrument, but it is complicated and difficult to follow. It is also difficult to know whether we have debated it before, and whether we are amending amendments to earlier instruments, or even the amendments to the amendments. This is not the best way. The Agriculture Bill, which we need to get back in play, would hopefully go beyond some of the secondary legislation that we are considering, and would make it absolutely clear to farmers that we are working in their best interest and know what is going on, and that Members across the House will help them by ensuring that every eventuality is covered. If we do not do those things, some market sectors will undoubtedly suffer, not only in the shorter run, but in the longer run.
Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.
Every time I see the initials CMO, I break out in a cold sweat. We have had this debate so many times that we never know which bit of the CMO we are talking about at any one moment. We debated it on the Floor of the House last week, and here we are again. Can the Minister start by telling us that this is the last time we will be debating an amendment to the CMO? I know that he had a slight interregnum when he was not here, but some of us have stayed the course and managed to debate every one of these CMO amendments, because they come around with ever greater regularity—more so even than buses. I am delighted that we are holding the Government to account over this.
With the best will in the world, it is very difficult for the Opposition to know exactly how these things fit together. It is a bit like a jigsaw puzzle, except somebody has thrown away the legend and all these different parts come to us. At one level, we could say, “Well, this is only secondary legislation, so we can just nod it through because it does not really make that much difference.” However, these are important market sectors and there are important elements for how we will, in due course, derive our new agricultural policy. Sadly, the existing agriculture Bill will fall for the second time today. Some of us spent 37 hours of our time on the Bill, which will be no more. No doubt we will start all over again—unless of course the Minister has not managed even to get it into the Queen’s Speech, which would say something about the importance of agriculture in this country.
The Minister knows that I am a bit of a fanatic about the relationship between pillar 1 and pillar 2—I always get interested when he talks about that. Can he clarify that there will be no change, whatever happens at the end of this month, in the Government’s commitment to pillar 2 expenditure—whatever it will be called—and that it will continue? I have said this many times before, but the danger has always been that we have not been good in this country at spending up to the amount we could have done, or at match-funding what was allowed in pillar 2. There has always been a temptation to pour money into pillar 1, which is the direct funding for farmers. That may be a justification for what we are trying to do with some of the changes, and that is partly inevitable. Will he give a guarantee that pillar 2 will in no way be starved of cash as a result of these changes?
The Minister has been clear about the relationship between reserved and devolved matters. Interestingly, Scotland did not get a mention in his initial speech, whereas Wales did—I note that a representative of the SNP is here. What is happening with Scotland? As he knows, Scotland chose, through a schedule, not to be part of the agriculture Bill, but Wales did. What impact will these potential changes have on Scotland?
The Minister said that these are predominantly technical changes, but they encompass some pretty important market sectors. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is now somewhat dated, and it was brought forward on the basis that there would be a deal. In terms of the legislative context, where does this all now stand if there is no deal at the end of the month? If we look at the CMO in context, it does not include the whole fabric of the way in which the common agricultural policy has operated. We will not be part of that, but we will not have anything else in its place at the end of the month. We are leaving it but actually staying in it, which is quite an interesting context. That is about managing market volatility, incentivising collaboration between competitive agricultural producers, and facilitating trade. That is why this is important; it covers a whole range of aspects of how our agriculture has evolved and how it will evolve over time.
With regard to the sectors, I am intrigued about why we always seem to fixate on olives. I do not know why the entire policy is always looking at olives. Last week we revoked something to do with olives. Why are olives no longer part of the scheme? I was led to believe that we do produce some olives in this country—indeed, we produce some of our own olive oil. We are revoking something, but what are we putting in its place to ensure that the market sector—for those of us who like olives—is properly protected and not subject to all manner of issues that could arise?
The Financial Times yesterday referred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs being under enormous pressure from the Department for International Trade to lower our agricultural standards and environmental protection, because that is the only way we will ever get a deal with the US. The Minister might want to comment on that in passing. There are those who say that will never happen, but if the Financial Times is to be believed, that is going on at the moment.
As for the consultation, it was held well over a year ago. Will the Minister say something about what has happened more recently, given that these changes have come thick and fast? They may be technical in nature but they are of great importance overall. How have the different consultees been updated to ensure that they are complicit in what is going on, rather than left trying to work it out for themselves?
With regard to guidance, I am looking at the physical copy of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 11.1 refers to two aspects:
“Producing and labelling food if there’s no Brexit deal”
and
“Farm payments if there’s no Brexit deal”.
But they do not appear in the online version. Is that the Government’s mushroom strategy—keep people in the dark and chuck a lot of stuff of them, on the basis that it will make no difference because they will not know? Why is that in one version but not in the other? Somebody somewhere had better provide a quick explanation. It matters, because farmers need to know, as I said in the Chamber shortly before coming here.
The National Farmers Union has some very strong words on the impact of no deal. More particularly, it clearly wants to be held closer than it is at the moment in relation to some of the repercussions. If this is anything to go by—given the number of mistakes that have been made, the number of changes that have been brought in, and the number of amendments to amendments, and indeed amendments to amendments to amendments —it is very difficult to keep up to date with what is happening and where we are going.
The Opposition will not be voting against these regulations, but we look to the Minister to give us some assurance that no further CMO amendments will be brought forward, even after we finish today’s little episode with another Prorogation. More particularly, will he ensure that the consultation on the changes is genuine and ongoing and that people know what is happening?
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
In rising to respond, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that we have not debated this measure before. I have been trying to find the one that was the missing thread among all the ones we have debated. At least I have put my mind at rest, knowing that I have not missed this in the great mists of time.
I wish to pick up on a couple of things with the Minister. Paragraph 2.10 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“These technical amendments, designed to provide operability ‘fixes’”.
Is that a legalistic term? Is it a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs term? Is it some other term? I know what it is trying to tell me but it is interesting that we talk about “fixes”. This is about trying to look at currency exchange, which is not unimportant, because one reason why British farmers have done less badly is that they have been paid in euros up to this moment in time. That has meant they have done slightly better, because the euro has risen in value against the pound. So there will be some “losers” here in the sense that they will not have that security and protection.
That was just an interesting comment, but now I come to a genuine question. It is about the way in which, certainly through the transitionary arrangements, export refunds will be paid. I accept that they will be paid in pounds, but does this refer both to the UK farmers receiving exports refunds and to EU farmers, who clearly at the moment will have seen this as a seamless operation? It is not now going to be, because it could be occurring in the context of a hard border. These are important aspects. The Government decided that this was not worthy of any priority whatsoever, but it is an important issue about currency conversion, because that can and does mean that the way in which payments are made can be beneficial. That will not be the case in the future because payments will always be in pounds. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification and willingness to look at the economic consequences of that, because in the short run at least British farmers could stand to lose out because of it.
Exiting the European Union (Pesticides)
David Drew Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
This is the most controversial of the four SIs that we have dealt with today, and we had a forthright debate on this subject previously in Committee. Much of that debate was about the theme I have been pushing today—that is, questioning the process of oversight and accountability.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Pesticides Action Network have both contacted me to demand that the Opposition scrutinise what the Government are saying and doing, so it was at our behest that this instrument was moved from the negative to the affirmative resolution procedure. In fact, we were tempted to vote against it on the basis that the Government need to explain better and to be clearer about how they intend to carry through—not just legislatively, but practically.
As I said earlier, this is about dissecting the parts that we have played as an integrated constituent partner within the EU, and how we begin to pull away. Two of our major agencies—the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Executive—will be involved in this process. The HSE will almost certainly be responsible for testing the measures. It is therefore important that we know from the Government what they intend to do and how they intend to do it.
The RSPB and the Pesticides Action Network made six points. First, there is the loss of oversight checks and balances for a significant consolidation of power within an agency that, as such, does not exist at the moment. That is why I referred to the FSA and the HSE, because they are certainly going to have to be responsible for this in the short run. Secondly, there is the weakening of the requirement to obtain independent scientific advice that I referred to previously. Thirdly, there is the weakening of other standards. Fourthly, there are the important parts of the regime left unclear or with detail to be filled in through guidelines. I accept that this debate is partly about trying to clarify further where we might be in terms of those guidelines, but it is not yet absolutely clear what is going to happen. Fifthly, there is the loss of capacity and the lack of investment in the stand-alone regime. Again, I keep referring to that. Finally, as I have said and they confirm, there are the mistakes that were made in drafting these SIs on a previous occasion.
In the previous debate, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), gave me some assurances. However, this is a work in progress and not necessarily something that has yet been completely nailed down by the Government. It is really becoming very important. I am still not clear what has happened to the REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—directive, for example. This will be a very major part of what the REACH directive, as constituted when it comes into UK law, then entails, because pesticides, or plant protection products as they are properly referred to, will be an important part of what it is properly accountable for. I would welcome the Minister saying something about that. The chemicals division of the HSE has 150 people because it is largely operating within the framework of the EU. It will not be doing that after 31 October, so it will be important to know exactly how this is going to be constituted in a different format, given that we still do not have the environment Bill enacted.
There are other concerns that are important at this stage, to reiterate what I said in Committee, cost being one of them. The Minister has presumably looked at who is going to pay for this, because it will potentially be more expensive when we have a stand-alone regime.
Kerry McCarthy
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. One of my concerns is that the Government may seek to recoup some of these costs, or to make savings, through the weakened requirement to obtain independent scientific advice. As I understand it, the measure now says:
“The assessing competent authority may obtain independent scientific advice where it considers it appropriate to do so.”
That is quite a bit weaker than the current requirement where it says that it “shall” obtain advice. That may be one way in which the Government would seek to save money.
Dr Drew
I thank my hon. Friend. That is one of the things we waxed lyrical about in the previous incarnation of this debate where we looked at “may” replacing “shall” and “must”. That gives—dare I say it?—a degree of wriggle room about how this is going to operate. This really does need sorting out by the Government because it will be too late if we get to this stage in a month’s time and it is not at all clear what is going to happen. This matters, because farmers need clarity.
I read today the report on the ban on neonicotinoids. I do not pretend to understand everything in it, because I read it quickly, but it was quite interesting. It looks at some of the scare stories put about that neonicotinoids would lead to a dramatic reduction in sugar beet and other products, whereas that does not seem to have been the case initially. We need to know what pesticides will be allowed and who will scientifically adjudicate on their safety. Will we have a different regime? We could choose to ban glyphosates, which the EU decided not to do, largely at the instigation of British MEPs. That matters to not only farmers but every gardener, because most of us have Roundup in our sheds and, if we are ever going to dispose of it as a potentially hazardous product, we will have to think about how to do it.
These debates are crucial, and this one has a more far-reaching impact than any, so we have to ensure that we get this right. It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether this is the final time we will consider this; what mechanism is now in place, whether it be the HSE working with the FSA or, eventually, the office for environmental protection, which presumably will encompass those two agencies when it comes to these products; and the detail of how we are changing the process of looking at the scientific basis of how we deal with these products, which are potentially quite hazardous but which farmers would argue are crucial to the way they carry out their business.