Dairy Industry

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this debate. The over-subscription of the debate, which has necessitated such a tight time limit on contributions, shows the importance of the dairy industry. Many cheese varieties have been mentioned, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) said that the best cheese is in the west country. I say that the cheese gets better the further west it is made. If people go all the way to Cornwall, they will find the best cheese.

Volatility is the new challenge facing the industry, and I will briefly describe what has happened, because we seem to have gone almost full circle in little more than two years. In June 2012, UK farm-gate milk prices fell to just over 26p a litre, and at that time feed prices were extremely high. The situation was incredibly difficult, and confidence was at rock bottom. Many of us will remember attending a meeting with the then Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), to highlight the issue and the crisis facing farming. However, we then experienced a much better period and something of a turnaround. Relationships in the supply chain improved drastically following the development of a new code of practice for dairy contracts. By November 2013, prices had gone up to 34.5p a litre. Demand started to grow in China, feed costs fell dramatically and our farmers responded by increasing production. UK milk production increased for the first time in 10 years.

The latest figures from the farm business survey published just last week show that, in the very positive 2013-14 financial year, the average farm business income on dairy farms increased by more than two thirds to more than £87,000 a year, which was driven by both increased prices and increased production. That was perhaps a record year, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) showed when he described the concerns of one of his constituents, many farmers will now feel that that seems a long time ago. Since then we have sadly seen another serious dip in prices, with the latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics showing that the average milk price in September 2014 was just over 30p a litre. Anecdotally, there are some examples of farmers accepting less than 30p a litre. Some projections show that the price could still go down further. In fact, we can probably expect to see another six months of relatively low prices.

[Roger Williams]

Dairy UK is concerned that some information issued by the Department of Health about the quality and healthiness of dairy products is not true. Will the Minister please talk to the Department of Health to address that concern?

[George Eustice]

That was an issue about a year ago. We had discussions with the Department of Health, and the Government changed some of the approaches in the advertising to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

There is some good news, in that the average price for forage crops remains low, and the price of protein concentrates continues to fall. The UK farm-gate milk price also remains a bit stronger than in some other European countries, notably Germany and Poland. Some of the Baltic states have been very exposed to the Russian ban. In Latvia, for instance, the average farm- gate price is now less than 20p a litre. Nevertheless, the sharp fall in prices has had a big impact on farmers, and confidence is low. As I said, we seem to have gone full circle.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, as I had hoped to speak in this debate. There was a meeting of Cheshire farmers yesterday, at which I am told frustration reigned. The main question they asked me to put to the Minister was this: what can the Government do to reassure dairy farmers that they have a viable future and so should invest in the future of their businesses?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will address in a moment.

Volatility is, of course, a feature of global markets. The National Farmers Union is showing strong leadership in developing futures markets and other market mechanisms alongside industry partners. Every six months I chair a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum. The next meeting was due just before Christmas, and given the challenges that the industry is facing, I have brought that meeting forward to a little under two weeks’ time. One of the key issues I want to address in that meeting is whether we can do more to support the NFU to develop the mechanisms that help farmers to manage volatility.

Despite the current challenges, as many hon. Members have said, the long-term picture for our dairy industry is very positive. British farmers and dairy producers are producing a range of fantastic products. Over the next decade, global demand for dairy is expected to increase by around 2.5% a year. Earlier this summer, I attended the launch of the industry’s “Leading the Way” growth plan, which sets out some of the opportunities for the industry. We are supporting and encouraging dairy farmers and processors to develop their businesses on the back of growing demand, and over the past year exports of milk powder have grown by 65% to £152 million, and cheese exports are up by 12%.

As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, there has been a particular problem in China, where demand has fallen, which has contributed to some of our difficulties with price. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be visiting China in December, and I am sure this will be one of the issues on her list. Substantial investments are being made in the UK dairy processing industry, which is testament to its long-term potential, including Arla’s new plant at Aylesbury and plans for the Davidstow creamery in Cornwall.

On the idea of encouraging producer organisations, we have given dairy farmers the opportunity to unite in producer organisations so that they have greater clout in the marketplace. In the past two years the Government have spent £5 million supporting that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) spoke about quotas, and at virtually every Agricultural Council since January I have resisted calls from Germany, Austria and others to loosen the quota regime ahead of time. Earlier, they were concerned about the risk to them of the super-levy fine, and we have resisted those calls because we did not want to create additional pressure on the market. Many hon. Members have highlighted the dairy code, and Alex Fergusson has now concluded his review. He concluded that the code is working well and has made a positive difference, and 85% of production is currently covered by the code.

A number of people have talked about transparency in the contracting system, which is provided for in the code. Farmers essentially have an opportunity to walk away from a contract with three months’ notice, or if there is to be a clear and transparent basis on which the price is calculated, sometimes linked to production costs, it has to be clearly stated in the contract.

A number of Members asked whether the code should be put on a statutory footing. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, there are drawbacks to that, because we probably would not be able to include a farmer’s right to walk away after three months. We would end up with a statutory code that is far weaker than the voluntary code.

Co-operatives have also been mentioned. One of the points that Alex Fergusson made in his report is that, although members tend to be very happy in co-operatives and tend to support that approach, he thinks that in some cases they could do more to leverage their power within a co-operative to ensure that they are getting a fair deal, which the farming industry might want to consider.

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), have mentioned the groceries code adjudicator. It is important to recognise that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has committed to reviewing the groceries code adjudicator in 2016, but the dairy code is currently voluntary, and the latest report by Alex Fergusson concluded that it is working well. Farmers are not telling us that the code itself is a problem. The other thing we have to recognise is that the dairy code is most valuable to farmers when markets are tight and prices are rising; it is of less use to them at the moment when, frankly, we have an oversupply, with milk production up by about 10%. Finally, the other issues raised today concern whether retailers should be covered by the code, which the industry is considering because it was recommended by Alex Fergusson. The long-term future is bright for the industry, and we are doing all we can to address the immediate challenges.

Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this important debate. As many Members have said, this issue is complex and sensitive. I had the pleasure of giving evidence to his all-party parliamentary group, and I thought that the report was engaging and got to grips with the details. As many hon. Members have said, it addressed the issue calmly and dispassionately, focusing on the evidence. I welcome his approach. Over the last six months or so, I have met representatives from all sides of the debate, including from Shechita UK, halal meat processors and Compassion in World Farming, to ensure that I have the fullest perspective of everyone’s views on the issue.

I will start by setting out a little of the historical and international context to the debate. Like many debates, it has been running for a long time. Today, European and domestic regulations apply to the welfare of animals that are to be slaughtered, requiring that all animals be stunned before slaughter. However, as every hon. Member here knows, there is a derogation to allow slaughter without stunning in accordance with religious rites for the production of halal or kosher meat only. The aim of the regulations is to ensure that animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of killing.

However, our current national requirements on religious slaughter have a long history. Government first set down powers to prevent cruelty in slaughterhouses in the Public Health Act, which was as long ago as 1875. Byelaws made under that legislation required that animals be “effectually stunned”. After that, in 1904, a Committee was set up to ascertain the most humane practicable methods of slaughtering animals. The Committee’s report recommended that all animals to be slaughtered, without exception, should be stunned.

Following that report, the Local Government Board issued a circular proposing that the Committee’s recommendations should be implemented, but that stunning should not be obligatory where slaughter was carried out by a Jew licensed by the Chief Rabbi, provided that no unnecessary suffering was inflicted. Interestingly, a similar requirement for shechita slaughter—that it is carried out by a Jewish slaughterman licensed by the Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim—still exists in our current national legislation.

The first national legislative requirement in England and Wales for stunning before slaughter was in the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which also retained an exception from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. Over the years, the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide protection to animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites.

Our existing national rules on religious slaughter provide greater protection than those contained in the European regulation. For example, there are requirements for how cattle can be restrained. In particular, we prohibit inversion during slaughter, and require bovines to be restrained only in approved restraining pens. The requirements for bovine restraining pens are set down in national legislation. Other national rules concern so-called standstill times for cattle, sheep and goats; following the neck cut, the animal cannot be moved until at least 30 seconds have passed and the animal is unconscious, in the case of bovines, or at least 20 seconds have passed and the animal is unconscious, in the case of sheep and goats. The standstill times are aimed at providing protection from avoidable pain, suffering and distress caused, for example, by unnecessary movement while the animal is still conscious after its neck has been cut.

I turn now to what other countries are doing, to make some international comparisons. European legislation allows for national rules on religious slaughter, so there are differing rules across Europe. For example, in Germany abattoirs have to prove the “religious needs” and define the number of animals to be slaughtered so as to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned before they are granted a licence. In the Netherlands, all animals must be stunned if they have not lost consciousness within 40 seconds of the cut being made. In France, there must be a post-cut stun if cattle are still conscious after 90 seconds. Other countries, such as Finland, Denmark, Austria, Estonia and Slovakia, go further by requiring immediate post-cut stunning. Further afield, under Australian law stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for religious slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but post-cut stunning is still required for these animals.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who was here earlier, mentioned the potential impact on exports and the concerns that some people have about what might happen to exports if we place additional restrictions on religious slaughter. I completely understand that argument. However, last year I met a farmer from Australia, who said that all Australian sheep are effectively slaughtered in accordance with halal requirements, because they are exported to some very important Muslim markets in Asia, but those sheep are also stunned post-cut.

The reason I highlight both the historical and the international context of this issue is that there has been a long-running debate about it, which legislators have wrestled with for well over a hundred years. I am not sure that we will resolve all the issues here today in this debate but we have had a very calm and insightful debate, which has certainly helped.

I will pick up on the points that some hon. Members have made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, one of the issues with halal is that there is no single definition of what constitutes “halal”. Often in the case of halal meat, the relevant Muslim authorities are content that the animal is stunned. Where that stunning is carried out during the course of religious slaughter, the stun must be effective under the legislation and the animals must also be stunned using a lawful stunning method. As was pointed out by a number of hon. Members, the majority of halal meat is stunned; around 88% of poultry in the UK is stunned.

Also, the EU welfare at slaughter regulation allows for “simple stunning”, which is sometimes referred to as “recoverable stunning”. Simple stunning does not kill the animal but renders it unconscious and insensible to pain and, if it is used, it must be followed as quickly as possible by a procedure that causes death, such as bleeding.

I will pick up on some of the issues that other hon. Members have raised. First, however, I will underline the Government’s position today, which builds on the long-standing position we have adopted in this country. Our position is that we would prefer that all animals are stunned before slaughter, but we recognise and respect the needs of religious communities, so we have always maintained this limited exemption, which is to be used only for meat produced for Jewish and Muslim communities. Last year, the Prime Minister made it very clear in a speech that the Government have no intention of abolishing religious slaughter in this country. However, it is equally important to note that none of the derogations that we have in place, which are set out through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, exempt anyone from the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which requires all abattoirs to avoid causing an animal avoidable pain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and a number of other hon. Members questioned the evidence that non-stunned slaughter causes more pain and suffering to an animal. I understand the arguments that he made; I have met representatives of Shechita UK and heard those arguments from them. However, that is not a view that is widely shared in the scientific or veterinary community.

Put bluntly, the situation is clear from most of the evidence. There are a number of reports. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee issued a report in 2003, which concluded that there was significant pain and distress where there was not stunning before slaughter. Likewise, in 2004 the European Food Safety Authority issued a similar opinion, maintaining that there was more pain and suffering if there was no stun. There was also the EU Dialrel report and project, which was conducted in 2009 and looked at the neurological behaviour of animals once they are slaughtered. That report, too, reached a similar conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, and more recently there has been research in New Zealand, which reached the same conclusion. So there is a large body of research that concludes that it is better for the welfare of the animal for it to be stunned, and it is for that reason that the Government would prefer it if all animals were stunned.

It is important to make that point, because although the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of banning religious slaughter, we must understand the basis on which that is done. It is not that we believe that there is no difference between the two types of slaughter, nor that we believe shechita is a more welfare-friendly method of slaughter, but because we respect the rights of religious communities. That has been the long-standing position of every UK Government, going back some 100 years.

A number of hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), raised the issue of labelling. The European Commission is conducting a study on labelling at the moment; we expect it to conclude in December. Initially, it was planned that the study would be published this summer, but as usual—because this is a very contentious issue—it has taken the Commission rather longer than it thought. Nevertheless, we hope that the study will come by the end of the year, or perhaps the beginning of next year.

A number of hon. Members made the point that it would be wrong just to label meat as “stunned” or “unstunned”, and that a fairer way would be to list all the different methods of slaughter. The only thing I would say in response is that, from the EU perspective, “stunned” has a clear legal definition in the legislation, and it is simply that an animal is rendered insensible to pain almost immediately. As I say, that is a clear definition and the scientific evidence does not support the argument that a cut without prior stunning achieves that. In addition, it would be complicated to list all the different methods of slaughter and, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, I am not sure that there would be a huge consumer appetite for us to try to differentiate between all the different methods of slaughter.

I know that previously people have said that perhaps we should label meat as being “halal” or “kosher”, so that people know what they are buying. However, there are also difficulties with that, in that there is no single definition of “halal”, as many hon. Members have said, and a further complication is that not all meat slaughtered by kosher methods is deemed “kosher”; for instance, the hind quarters of an animal are not deemed “kosher”, even though the animal is slaughtered by kosher methods. As I say, there are complications in the area of labelling, but we await the report from the European Commission and look forward to following it up.

I will also cover mis-stunning, which many hon. Members have mentioned. I can confirm that the Food Standards Agency has reviewed the way that it approaches mis-stunning. Previously, it only reported critical breaches that were observed by the official veterinarians in the slaughterhouse. We always accepted that that would not pick up every single mis-stun. Following representations that have been made, which is proof that this Parliament works when people ask questions of Ministers, I can confirm that we looked at this issue again and in future the FSA intends basically to monitor and record all breaches, whether or not they were critical.

The important thing to understand is that just because there is a mis-stun, that does not necessarily mean that the welfare outcome for the animal was dire. On occasions, and this usually happens with bovine animals, what a mis-stun means is that the first shot taken by the captive bolt did not quite achieve the intended task, and within seconds—almost literally—a second bolt is fired, which finishes the job. So it is wrong to equate mis-stunning with dire outcomes from an animal welfare point of view. Nevertheless, we are concerned about mis-stunning and will therefore monitor it.

I will finish by referring briefly to a few other points. CCTV in slaughterhouses is an issue; the FAWC is looking at it. The last time we had a consultation on it, we ruled out its use, on the basis that we did not think it would necessarily identify where there were problems, but we keep the issue under review.

Also, when it comes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made about consistency of approach, I have asked the FSA and our vets in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the approach they take to these issues, to ensure that there is consistency.

Finally, I will finish on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) made, namely that there is a difference between animal species. We know that sheep and chickens lose consciousness relatively quickly but sadly the same is not true for bovines, which can take up to 1 minute 20 seconds to lose consciousness.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I thank all Members who took part in that important debate. If they are not staying for the debate on broadband in Cheltenham, will they be kind enough to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? They no doubt have plenty to chew over as they leave. We now move on to the important subject of broadband in Cheltenham, in the name of Mr Martin Horwood.

Badger Culls (Assessment)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to today’s debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions, which have covered a wide range of issues.

This year’s culls finished as planned after six weeks, and we are now analysing the data collected over that period. The data are being independently audited in the same way as last year’s. When the analysis is complete, the outcomes of this year’s cull will be published, so I will focus on our approach to collecting the data and assessing populations this year—issues to which many hon. Members have alluded. That is directly relevant to this debate.

We published our approach to monitoring before the culls started, and I confirm that we carried out the planned number of field observations and far more than the planned number of post-mortem examinations—figures that were both set last year. A lot of information has been collected. The processes used for collecting data are also currently subject to independent audit. We are taking the same approach as last year to ensure that our data are robust.

In August 2014 we published a detailed document setting out our precise methodology, “Setting the minimum and maximum numbers for Year 2 of the badger cull”, and before the cull started we published that guidance to help Natural England set this year’s minimum and maximum numbers. We set out clearly how this year’s numbers were derived for each area, and the paper describes in great detail—it runs to 34 pages—the basis of the estimates and any assumptions made. The approach was agreed by the chief scientific adviser. Estimating wildlife populations is subject to uncertainty, as the independent expert panel acknowledged in its report last year. It is important that we use all valid sources of information, giving particular weight to up-to-date evidence about numbers of active setts, based on repeated observations across the whole cull area.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the somewhat unscientific outburst by Professor Rosie Woodroffe. I like Rosie Woodroffe—she hails from Cornwall and even went to the same school as my sister—but she needs to compare the approach taken in the randomised badger culling trials with the methodology we have used this year. The reality is that there was no hair-trapping at all in the RBCTs, on which all our assumptions in the fight against this disease are based. In fact, no assessment of the badger population was made at the start of the culls. Instead, once four years of culling were finished, there was a retrospective attempt to estimate what the population might have been at the start—to back-calculate what the populations were. People have talked about the methodology that we adopted being crude, but how is that for crude? The RBCTs did not even assess the population before they started, and then they retrospectively tried to estimate what the population was.

Compare that with the approach we took this year, which is set out in great detail on pages 10 and 11 of the guidance. We took the end point of the population last year as this year’s starting point. We followed the IEP’s advice and used the cull sample matching method to try to predict the end population after last year’s culls. We then used a number of models, which are set out in detail, to take account of population growth. Those models are largely rooted in long-standing population measurements in places such as Woodchester park over many years—there are 20 years of data—to establish how populations change over a given winter. At the end of that process, as with the RBCT, which is all the IEP had to go on, we finally submitted the population to method 4, which is where one looks at the real activity on the ground. There were sett surveys and sett sticking. We have looked at the latrines and measured actual activity in badger setts. That is a kind of reality check, to check whether our data models are giving the right information.

The shadow Secretary of State highlighted the fact that different approaches were taken in Somerset and Gloucester, and asked why. We set that out in great detail on pages 12 and 13 of the guidance. In Gloucester, there was greater consistency in what the models were telling us about the population, so it was easier to meet that condition. In Somerset there was a conflict between some of the models, so it went with the most reliable model, which used real data in real time on real activity in setts.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What progress has the Minister made with farmers on trying to find ways to improve biosecurity so that there is less contact between badgers and cattle?

[George Eustice]

We are making progress. In fact, we have been talking to an accreditation organisation about whether we could get farmers to sign up to a package of measures to improve biosecurity, including keeping badgers away from their farmyards, for example, to try to reduce the spread of the disease.

There is a misunderstanding about the IEP. Last year, the IEP was not out in the field in the middle of the night with binoculars to observe the culls. That was done by Natural England staff last year, and they did it again this year in the same way. The IEP did not carry out the post-mortems on badger carcasses last year. It was done by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, both last year and this year. The IEP had a one-off role last year in informing us of how we should treat the raw data that came from AHVLA and Natural England. The IEP was not in the field; it was a desktop exercise. The IEP completed its work, and we do not need to repeat it this year. Do we need the British Ecological Society to repeat what the IEP did last year? No, we do not, because that job was done and completed last year, and this year we have a process that will be audited. If the British Ecological Society has an opinion, it can express a view on this very detailed, 34-page report. People like Professor Woodroffe say that they do not agree with the report, but they have yet to explain why.

[Mrs Main]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will not give way, because I want to get through as many other points as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and others highlighted the situation in Wales and the limitations of vaccination. He is right that it is wrong to read too many conclusions into the fall in incidences of the disease in Wales. The vaccination trials in Wales cover only about 1% of the land area. We are running our own vaccination trials in the edge area. I have met a number of wildlife groups to discuss taking that project forward to check the spread of bovine TB, so vaccination has a role in fighting this disease. Vaccination is part of the Government’s strategy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) mentioned the inaccuracy of the skin tests. We know that the test is only about 80% effective, but where we have a serious breakdown, we often use it in conjunction with the gamma interferon test, which has fewer false negatives but a few more false positives. We can use that where we deem it necessary. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that the RBCT proves that culling does not work, but that is not the case. The RBCT actually proves that, at the end of the four-year cull period, there was an improvement in the number of breakdowns.

I finish by reminding hon. Members that we have the worst bovine TB situation in the developed world. We cannot let that continue if we want competitive, productive and profitable beef and dairy sectors. Other countries that have faced similar problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) pointed out, have demonstrated the route to long-term disease freedom. They show us that addressing the risks posed by wildlife must be part of any coherent and comprehensive approach to tackling this disease.

We now have a very clear strategy for achieving our goal of official TB-free status in England. The approach includes deploying tighter cattle measures, strengthening biosecurity, and vaccinating badgers to prevent the disease from spreading from the TB high-risk area to the edge area. Unlike the Opposition, we are clear that any coherent strategy to eradicate TB must include measures to address the disease in wildlife in TB hot spots. We will continue to use all options available to us today to fight this dreadful disease, which has been out of control for 20 years. Doing nothing is no longer an option, which is why we intend to stick with this strategy.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 13 October in Luxembourg. Richard Lochhead MSP was also present.

Fisheries

Agreement was reached on setting the TACs and quotas for the Baltic sea in 2015, established for the first time under the requirements of the reformed common fisheries policy. Preparatory discussions were also held ahead of the upcoming EU-Norway fisheries agreement negotiations, where I highlighted our priorities of North sea cod and continuation of our successful catch quota scheme. I also supported the Commission in the need to introduce further shark protection measures and follow the science in setting quotas for bluefin tuna at next month’s annual meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

The Council discussed the impact of the Russian trade restrictions on EU fisheries products. I highlighted the impact on the Scottish pelagic fishing industry with Russia making up 18% of the UK’s mackerel exports in 2013. I was successful in securing agreement from the Council to increase quota banking rates from 10% to 25% for mackerel and herring as a temporary measure. This will allow UK fishermen to carry over more of their 2014 quota until 2015, thereby providing more time to develop alternative export markets.

Under AOB Lithuania also raised its concerns about the seizing of a Lithuanian fishing vessel by the Russian authorities. Commissioner Damanaki assured Lithuania that she was giving high priority to responding to this situation.

Agriculture

Europe 2020 strategy

Member states responded to a short presidency questionnaire on the Europe 2020 strategy mid-term review. I stressed that CAP contributes to jobs and growth through pillar 2 rural development programmes where it can be used to support agricultural innovation and competitiveness.

Europe 2030 climate and energy package

EU Ministers participated in a lunch discussion on the treatment of agriculture and the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector under the 2030 climate and energy framework. I argued that we cannot have an informed discussion in the immediate term on the role of these sectors as there is insufficient data to fully assess the three options suggested by the Commission and outlined in the presidency’s paper. The Commission acknowledged that further work was required.

Agricultural trade issues

The Commission updated the Council on the progress of several trade negotiations, including the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) and Mercosur. Several member states accepted that open, global markets were necessary but many raised concerns. Focusing on TTIP, I acknowledged that there would be some difficult discussions ahead however none appeared insurmountable and we should not overlook the benefits for all parties from a successful deal.

African swine fever

The Council endorsed a Commission proposal in response to a request from Poland and the Baltic member states to increase the EU co-financing rate to 75% for measures to combat the spread of African swine fever.

Russian ban on agriculture products from the EU

The Commission stated that it wanted to provide direct compensation to dairy producers in the Baltic member states and Finland who have been impacted the most as a result of the Russian import ban. Commissioner Ciolos, however, was unable to provide further detail but acknowledged that it may need to be funded through the crisis reserve. I accepted the principle but argued that further detail was required and we needed to consider the precedent it would set. The Commission and presidency agreed to discuss this further at the special committee on agriculture on 20 October. I, along with several other member states, rejected Polish proposals for the reintroduction of export refunds in the dairy sector and a temporary increase in the intervention price.

International Olive Oil Council

The Commission updated the Council on action it was taking to prevent the current impasse in negotiations to extend the mandate of the International Olive Oil Council, and its efforts to persuade the Turkish chair to extend the current agreement for one year.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking to ensure that the Marine Management Organisation receives additional quotas of ray.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The Marine Management Organisation is urgently pursuing the possibility of quota swaps with other member states. If sufficient additional quota can be acquired through this means, a limited reopening of the fishery may be possible. If not, the fishery will reopen again on 1 January.

[Mr Cox]

Last week the important fish processor in my constituency closed its doors, with the loss of many jobs. Many marine experts regard the monitoring and data processing of landing declarations by the MMO as a joke. Will the Minister hold an inquiry into the management of quota by the MMO? What is he to say to northern Devon fishermen and allied trades who have lost their jobs when, as a result of their pioneering conservation measures, fish stocks in the Bristol channel are abundant?

[George Eustice]

I am very sympathetic to the arguments my hon. and learned Friend makes. Indeed, when he raised it with me last week I asked the MMO to redouble its efforts to find additional quota. It has been a very good summer of fishing. We do not normally have this problem with skates and rays. It is something that took everyone by surprise, including producer organisations. However, I am keen that lessons are learned. That is why I will be having discussions with the MMO about how it manages the quota on this particular stock. We will also be looking to ensure that next year his constituents continue to have a quota to fish from 1 January.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend guarantee to the House today that he will do everything he can to seek additional quota in the negotiations next year to ensure that British fisherman can continue to fish for the whole year without this disastrous effect?

[George Eustice]

Yesterday, I was in Belfast for the meeting of a stakeholder group of fishing industry leaders. We discussed the approach to the December Council. The UK always takes a science-based approach. We have to recognise that it is in the long-term interests of the fishing industry that we fish our fisheries sustainably. That said, we will be looking at mixed fisheries analysis to ensure that we achieve maximum sustainable yield where possible next year and everywhere else by 2020.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

2. What plans she has to reduce water bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

3. What recent representations she has received on the marine charter and marine protected areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We regularly receive correspondence about marine protected areas, including on the marine charter put forward by Link. I will be attending the marine charter parliamentary reception on 19 November.

[Annette Brooke]

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, let me say how pleased I am that Dorset was included in the original 27 marine conservation zones. However, does the Minister agree that there is a long way to go before we can achieve a full network of marine protected areas by 2016, as set out in the Act, and can he say what level of commitment the Government are giving to achieve those important objectives?

[George Eustice]

Earlier this year we announced 37 candidate sites for the second tranche of marine conservation zones and we intend to publish a consultation on the second tranche in the new year. It is our intention to have a third tranche in 2016, so the work to take forward additional marine conservation zones is well under way.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

But a lot of the work has already been done. For example, a huge amount of research was done on whether the 127 marine conservation zones were economically viable. When will the Minister actually start designating the zones that are needed if we are to have an ecologically coherent marine conservation network?

[George Eustice]

We have started designating them. The first 27 were designated a year ago and, as I said, we are consulting on the second tranche. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is doing a huge amount of work—it did a lot of work this summer. We spent around £10 million on research to get the best evidence we can so that these decisions are informed by the scientific evidence. That work is going on, and we plan to do this in three tranches, as we have made clear all along.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that marine protected areas are only part of the conservation measures we need in our seas. Does he agree that more conservation work needs to be done, for example on bass, stocks of which, so the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea informs us, are absolutely plummeting?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Minister for the marine environment, he did a huge amount to take forward marine conservation zones. When it comes to bass, I can tell him that we expect to have an important breakthrough in December. We have always said that there should be technical measures. The stock has been fished unsustainably and there is a tentative proposal, which we expect to be raised at the December Council, that will look at both bag limits and catch limits, so that we can preserve this vital stock.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister has ever been to the Isle of Wight, which is of course an island that people can get to only by using a ferry. There is concern on the island that marine protection areas could get in the way of ferries, which are the only regular way to get to the island. What is he going to do about that?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has extended an invitation to me to visit the Isle of Wight. I look forward to a journey on the hovercraft—I think it is the last one we have operating in the UK—to meet his constituents. He has raised concerns about some of the proposed marine conservation zones around the Isle of Wight. I can assure him that socio-economic factors are taken into account when we assess MCZs, as set out in the 2009 Act. I hope to have the opportunity to visit the Isle of Wight in the months ahead.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to ensure that communities affected by flooding recover.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

5. What part her Department has played in negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

TTIP could be worth up to £10 billion a year for the UK. It has the potential to deliver significant opportunities for UK agriculture, food and drink. We are working very closely with BIS to ensure that TTIP maximises the benefits for UK businesses and consumers.

[Roger Williams]

The poultry industry, by which I mean the producers of poultry meat and eggs, have driven up animal welfare standards and hygiene in their businesses. Will the Minister assure that industry that that progress will not be compromised by unfair competition from US producers following lower standards?

[George Eustice]

I have met members of the poultry industry and the British Poultry Council to discuss their concerns. We managed to get a very successful free trade agreement with Canada. Sometimes it is possible to work through the sanitary and phytosanitary issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, as well as animal welfare issues, and to establish equivalent rather than identical measures. That is the spirit in which we should approach the negotiations.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome the openness of a free trade agreement, but can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that there are no mechanisms included in it—such as an investor-state dispute settlement—that would enable powerful vested interests to bully future Governments into dropping legislation that would improve food standards? We have already seen that happen with the disgraceful action of the Philip Morris tobacco company against the Australian Government.

[George Eustice]

I know that some people have expressed concern about the use of ISDS. Both the European Union and the United Kingdom are very conscious of that, and we do not intend to allow such agreements to undermine our ability to set our own welfare and regulatory standards when it comes to animal health.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that this country has been a member of the European Union in its various guises for more than 40 years, does my hon. Friend not think that we could have made faster progress in negotiating the trade deal with the United States of America if we had been doing it on our own rather than relying on the European Union to do it for us?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend may be right. It might have been possible to reach some of these free trade agreements more quickly. Indeed, we do make certain changes bilaterally, when it is a question of breaking down some of the non-tariff barriers to trade. However, being part of a customs union in the EU is of significant importance to our food industry, which is the largest manufacturing industry in the country.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

6. How many badgers were killed in the recent pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T3. Handline mackerel is a superb, sustainably caught fish, and many fishermen from my constituency have been struggling to secure a realistic price during the summer. How are the Government helping Cornish mackerel fishermen, and mackerel and herring fishermen throughout the UK, to combat the Russian trade embargo?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As a Cornishman, I am well aware of the importance of the handlining mackerel industry in Cornwall. We have managed to secure agreement from the Commission to allow us to bank up to 25% of this year’s quota to next year, to remove some mackerel from the market if necessary. We have also been very successful at reopening the market in Nigeria, which has been a particularly important market for many of our mackerel producers.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T4. Last night, young people from Peru told MPs about the dire effects that climate change is having on their agricultural communities, and asked that Governments listen to what people in those communities need. Will the Minister give support to international and national initiatives to tackle climate change once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Secretary of State is so keen on science, why does she not start applying it to the issue of where the birdsongs have gone? Will she look at Caitlin Moran’s recent article on this? The birds are disappearing from our gardens and our countryside, and they have disappeared even faster in the past four years. What is she doing about that with science?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Some weeks ago I visited the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ farm, Hope farm, up in Cambridgeshire. When we announce our new agri-environment schemes, measures that will support the recovery of farmland birds will certainly be among them.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Tessa Munt.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Secretary of State find out what has happened to the scheduling of payments for higher-level stewardship schemes for farmers in my environmentally sensitive part of Somerset? These have been contracted for a 10-year period but they seem to have been cut, delayed or changed without consultation or notice, and many farmers depend on them for their business.

[George Eustice]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. An important part of the agri-environment scheme in the next few years will be to fund higher-level stewardship schemes to conclusion. If she has particular concerns, I am happy to discuss those with her. There has been some alignment on the start dates of some of the schemes, but I am not aware of any problems with schemes discontinuing.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Control of Horses Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to tackling the issue of fly-grazing. Before I begin, perhaps I ought to declare an interest: I am a member of the Flicka Foundation, which is a horse and donkey sanctuary based in my constituency. As part of my membership package, I think I adopted a donkey called Tabitha.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) has long championed this issue. As he said in his opening remarks, he first held a debate in Parliament on this issue as long ago as 2012. I am happy to tell him that, sometimes, persistence pays off in this place, because I am delighted to confirm that the Government will support this simple but important Bill, which we believe could have a significant impact on helping people deal effectively with the issue of fly-grazing.

Many hon. Members will have had large amounts of correspondence from their constituents on this important issue. Animal welfare charities have done a great deal to highlight some of the challenges, including by producing reports such as “Left on the Verge”, to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), referred. As some hon. Members have said, it is estimated that there are some 3,000 stray ponies and fly-grazing horses in Wales and another 2,500 or so in England, so this is a serious problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer has pointed out, this is not the first time we have debated the issue. Indeed, last November, about a month into my appointment as the Minister responsible for farming, we had a debate that had been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). During that debate, we heard about the many problems caused by people fly-grazing their horses, and we have heard more about that today. In some parts of the country, significant numbers of horses are being fly-grazed and such incidents appear to be occurring more frequently. There have been incidents of fly-grazing horses straying on to the highways and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer noted in introducing the Bill, in at least one case that has led, sadly, to the death of a person in a road accident.

Since the November debate, there have been many calls on the UK Government to replicate for England the provisions in the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. We have been watching developments in Wales with interest. My hon. Friend said that he was reluctant to seek inspiration from Wales on this issue. As a Cornishman, I have no such reluctance: we western Celts have much in common and often learn from one another.

During last November’s debate I set out the approach we have taken in England to date, which has been to encourage all relevant local interests—local authorities, police, farmers, landowners and animal welfare charities—to co-operate to tackle the issues on the ground using the existing legislation. It is worth remembering that that there are four key relevant Acts, including the Animals Act 1971 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is relevant to the issue of horses in distress. I also highlighted during the November debate the potential for the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to give us stronger powers to deal with fly-grazing; I will return to that later. Finally, there is the Highways Act 1980.

Since the debate in November, we have given the issue more consideration. I can tell the House that my noble Friend Lord de Mauley has done a lot of work on it. He has met welfare charities, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, to discuss what can be done. The Government now recognise that making small amendments to the 1971 Act would go a long way to ensure that the provisions work better for those trying to deal with fly-grazing. The amendments would bring the legislation up to date, and make the process more efficient and less burdensome.

The debate in November brought out the fact, which has been highlighted again today, that there have been several changes since 1971. The first change is the introduction of microchipping and horse IDs. As I noted in the previous debate, since 2009 it has been a legal requirement that horses be identified with a microchip and passport. We know that many people who fly-graze horses do not do that, which has created two problems that we did not have in 1971. First, it makes it very difficult to identify and tackle the owners. Secondly, it makes it all the more expensive for local authorities and others to deal with the issue. Once they have detained a horse, they have to microchip and passport it themselves before selling it, which places added costs and burdens on them.

Another development since 1971 has been the change in the mode of sale or disposal of fly-grazed horses. Under the 1971 Act, a detained horse can be disposed of only through sale at market or auction. In 1971, when the Act was drawn up, animals fetched a good price at auction, and fewer horses were fly-grazed. My hon. Friend’s Bill proposes to amend the 1971 Act to provide a more flexible set of options, including euthanasia, sale or gifting to a charity.

The reality is that horses often have little or no monetary value today. There have even been cases of the owner of a detained horse buying it back at a knock-down price at auction, after it had been microchipped by the person who detained it. The fly-grazer was therefore able to gain a legally compliant horse at little cost, which cannot be fair. We need to address that matter, and my hon. Friend’s Bill does just that.

We have listened to the animal welfare charities. They have strongly argued for a mechanism whereby fly-grazed horses can either be re-homed or, in some cases, put down. Sadly, there is so little demand for horses and so much demand for re-homing that charities such as the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare and Redwings have all reported that their re-homing centres are full of unwanted horses.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there a direct correlation between the increase in fly-grazing and the fact that the value of horses has dropped so much? People just do not care any more: as horses have no value, they might as well fly-graze them.

[George Eustice]

From listening to the animal welfare charities, we know that part of the problem has undoubtedly been a lot of irresponsible breeding of horses. Horses are being bred for whom there is no market. Sadly, they are then abandoned by people who, frankly, are not fit to own horses in the first place.

I want to move on to the central feature of my hon. Friend’s Bill, which is the length of time that an animal must be detained before it can be sold. One difficulty created by the 1971 Act is that it requires the person who detains a horse to look after it for up to 14 days. During that time, they are responsible for its welfare and for preventing it from straying, and they are liable for any costs incurred. The Bill would permit the disposal of horses after the equivalent of four working days, rather than the present 14 days. We think that four working days strikes a good balance: it is lower than the figure of seven days that applies in Wales and, to respond to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), it will significantly reduce the cost to both local authorities and landowners of intervening in such cases, because they can sell or dispose of an animal after only four working days.

There are consequential amendments that must be made to the 1971 Act, one of which relates to the point that was put to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough about the requirement to give the police notice that one has detained a horse within 24 hours. In addition to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, it is worth pointing out that currently, notice must be given within three days. We think that it is proportionate to reduce the deadline to 24 hours, given that we have condensed the period of detention. There is a requirement to give notice to the police so that if they receive a report of a horse going missing, they can reconcile it with the report of fly-grazing, and thereby reunite ponies and horses with their legitimate owners who have just managed to mislay them.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am grateful to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for clearing up the point about the police. When the Bill becomes an Act, would it be worth issuing guidance to local authorities and police authorities on informing local hunts of the existence or whereabouts of detained horses, because they have facilities to help with the removal of horses, dead and alive?

[George Eustice]

That is something that may be considered when the Bill is, I hope, enacted.

The animal welfare codes recommend that a horse that is being kept should be tended to at least once a day to check that its welfare needs are met. We feel that the 24-hour notice period is reasonable because the legitimate owner of an animal would realise that they did not have the animal quite quickly. If the police are notified within 24 hours and there is a four-working-day period of detention, it will enable them to reunite the legitimate owners of a horse with their animal.

In common with the 1971 Act, when a detained horse is sold and there is money left over from the sale, any excess money, after the costs of the sale and of keeping the horse are deducted, can be claimed by the horse owner. For the most part, the horses that we are talking about will probably be of such low value that it is unlikely that there will be any money left after the sale.

The final element that I want to touch on relates to the concerns of welfare charities about the ambiguity of the definition of “stray” horses. Although the position has never been tested in the courts, the Bill seeks to address the concern that the 1971 Act is not designed to deal with deliberately placed horses. Clarifying the definition by making it clear that it includes horses that are there without legal authority is an important step forward.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I hope that consideration will be given in Committee to areas such as Exmoor and Dartmoor, with which the Minister is familiar, where there are wild ponies. How will one distinguish between animals that are being fly-grazed and wild herds?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend may well have the opportunity to raise those points as the Bill progresses.

The Bill represents an important step forward in promoting more responsible standards of horse ownership. It will uphold the need for owners to pay proper attention to their horses’ welfare and to avoid the burdens that fly-grazing imposes on public safety and private and public property.

I want to return to a point that I raised in the last debate on this subject. We must not lose sight of the potential to use the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to deal with this issue. In addition to the changes that the Bill will make to the 1971 Act, it is possible for local authorities to use a more streamlined antisocial behaviour measure under the 2014 Act, which came into force only this week. Local authorities and the police can issue a community protection notice against fly-grazers without having to apply to the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said, we recognise that in most cases the owner of the fly-grazing horse would have to be known, and in many cases that is not possible to establish without some form of investigation. To return to the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made, however, it is important that we do something about owners who abdicate their responsibility and neglect their horses. The Bill will give local authorities the ability to pursue irresponsible horse owners. Two prolific and persistent fly-grazers have recently been issued with antisocial behaviour orders under the old-style measures, so although we accept that there are difficulties, we still believe that we should act.

Finally, I return to the extension of the Bill’s provisions to private land, which several Members have mentioned. Bearing in mind the significant effect of fly-grazing on private land, the Government support such an extension, which would be consistent with the scope of the 1971 Act. It will require the approval of the House for amending the scope and long title of the Bill, but given the importance of doing so, the Government are happy to support that on this occasion. Such amendments would give private landowners and occupiers the benefits of the changes to the 1971 Act that local authorities will gain in respect of public places. I can confirm that we will therefore table a motion to direct the Public Bill Committee that it can consider amendments to the Bill that would enable its provisions to apply on private land.

I believe that the changes will be welcomed by local authorities, landowners and the animal welfare charities that have done much to highlight the issue in recent years. I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, who looks set to be more successful with his private Member’s Bill than I was with mine some years ago. I am happy to confirm the Government’s support for the Bill, and I wish him the very best of luck in taking it through Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

International Whaling Commission (65th Meeting)

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I was pleased to attend the first day of this year’s meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Slovenia (IWC65). I made very clear our commitment to maintaining the moratorium on commercial whaling and also to supporting ongoing work to strengthen IWC conservation and welfare initiatives.

I am happy to report that all UK objectives for this meeting were achieved. Most notable was the adoption of the UK-led welfare action plan, setting in train a programme of work to improve the IWC’s consideration of cetacean welfare. We worked hard with all IWC parties, including whaling nations such as Norway and Japan, to table a proposal that achieved consensus. This was a considerable achievement which demonstrates our strong leadership on such issues.

The UK-led recommendations to strengthen IWC conservation financing and improve financial governance and transparency were similarly adopted by consensus and praised. I was especially pleased at the significant floor time given to the conservation of small cetaceans by the IWC, with the UK raising our concerns about a number of species globally, including the Maui and Vaquita, as well as noting our concerns about ongoing hunts of small cetaceans. In addition, a resolution which sought to enhance international co-operation on highly migratory species, including small cetaceans, was adopted.

A number of other resolutions and schedule amendments were adopted at IWC65. This included a request from Denmark for an aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) quota for Greenland. This followed a controversial two year period where Greenland hunted in the absence of an IWC endorsed quota. In addition, an EU resolution on ASW, which seeks to improve IWC approaches to ASW, including the standardisation of needs statements, was also adopted as part of this package.

An important resolution that sought to incorporate the findings of the March 2014 judgment of the International Court of Justice on Japan’s scientific whaling in the southern ocean was adopted by a strong majority. Although it is disappointing that consensus could not be achieved, this ambitious resolution will still progress to the Scientific Committee and provide guidance in updating relevant processes for assessing scientific whaling permits.

I am especially pleased to note that the IWC has adopted measures to increase the participation of Civil Society in IWC meetings, as well as the improved consideration of conservation issues within the Scientific Committee. These two resolutions - agreed by consensus - were small but important steps forward, representing a significant achievement for the modernisation of IWC processes and continuing the work the UK began in 2011 to improve IWC governance.

A number of proposals were not successful. This included Japan’s long-standing request for a quota for “small-type coastal whaling”. In a change of approach, Japan now states that this is not a request for a new category of whaling, but a request for a quota for small scale commercial whaling. The proposal, which would undermine the moratorium on commercial whaling, was strongly defeated, but Japan will continue to pursue this issue intersessionally.

Although the UK voted in favour of establishing a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary, unfortunately the proposal narrowly missed the three-quarters majority required to be adopted. The proponents will progress this through the Scientific Committee in 2015. Another proposal we might expect to see return to the next meeting is a resolution on food security. Although all parties noted the importance of food security, a number of countries - including the UK - had concerns about the scope of the resolution and the competence of the IWC in relation to actions proposed. While the IWC can recognise the work done by organisations such as the FAO on the “right to food”, the IWC is not itself the forum for making resolutions on human rights. As no consensus was reached, the resolution was withdrawn and will be progressed intersessionally.

Finally, an EU led demarche to Iceland concerning continuing commercial whaling and international trade in whale products was delivered in Reykjavik on 15 September. Many countries drew attention to the demarche during the IWC meeting and requested that Iceland consider more profitable and sustainable alternatives like well managed whale watching.

Grimsby Seafood Manufacturers

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing the debate and bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As other Members have said, he has long been a champion of fisheries issues and the many fisheries businesses located in his constituency. Indeed, I remember when he changed his name a little over a decade ago to Austin Haddock, to highlight the plight of our fisheries industry. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting the Grimsby fish market and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), Grimsby Seafood Village. I also visited the new Morrison’s fish processing facility, and at a dinner I had the opportunity to meet representatives of Young’s to discuss some of their plans and aspirations. I understand how important the sector is to the local economy around Grimsby, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate.

As the hon. Gentleman said, we have corresponded on this matter, and I have also received representations directly from Young’s Seafood. He expressed some regret that we took some time to reply to that letter, but I assure him that there was a good reason for that. When I was shown the initial draft, it said that we could not do anything, and I wanted to explore the issue further. I put a hold on the letter and said I wanted a meeting to explore the issue with officials, to discuss it more fully with our lawyers and to challenge the legal opinion that we had. During that discussion, however, I was persuaded that their interpretation was correct. I will come on to explain the reasons for that, but first, I underline my support for the fish processing industry. When I visited Grimsby earlier this year, I saw at first hand what a forward-looking and dynamic sector it is. As well as employing thousands of people, it plays a vital role in providing the whole country with affordable, healthy food.

The hon. Gentleman and I have something in common: we are both on the Eurosceptic side of the political spectrum, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum on many other things. He has been consistent; I remember him saying before that his view of the European Union can be summed up in four words, and three of them are “the European Union”, and I can see that that has not changed at all. When I was the director of the “No” campaign against the euro, he played a leading part from the Labour Benches. I am afraid that the regulations I will describe will probably not do anything to diminish his scepticism on the European Union.

There are two issues under consideration: first, what constitutes a seafood business, and, secondly, whether such a business should be eligible for financial support from public funds. On the first question, which relates to the state aid rules, there are two relevant regulations. The first is the fisheries block exemption regulation, EC regulation 736/2008, which concerns aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products. The second is the fisheries de minimis regulation, EC regulation 717/2014. Both are clear, in alignment with the financial measures under the common fisheries policy, that they apply to the entire fisheries sector. The rules cover not only fishing or fish farming, or even the primary stages of processing, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but all stages of production, including the processing and marketing of the finished product. The regulations effectively mean that support can only be offered in accordance with the conditions set out in the European fisheries fund, which is soon to become the European maritime and fisheries fund. There is a de minimis exemption for small projects, up to a total of just €30,000 over three years. I appreciate that such a small amount is of little comfort to Young’s, which has such an ambitious project.

I have some sympathy with the argument that a company, as the hon. Gentleman said, may primarily be a food manufacturer that produces meals of all kinds, rather than just a fisheries business, but I cannot agree that we are gold-plating the EU state aid requirements. They have a little room for interpretation, but it is just that: a very small amount of room. In this instance, it cannot reasonably be argued that a business whose entire product range appears to be fish-based is anything other than a fisheries business, as defined under the regulations.

We have applied the rules consistently, and have rejected similar large proposals from large applicants on exactly the same grounds. To be consistent, we have to apply the same approach now. If we were to take a high-risk approach on Young’s and allow it to receive this aid, the risk would lie with Young’s. The European Commission could decide that the aid was unlawful and require it to be repaid. If Young’s had already invested the funds in infrastructure and jobs, it would then be in the unenviable position of having to repay the aid in full, plus interest. That could pose a greater risk to the business than simply being clear in the first place that it is not eligible. In addition, should the Commission find the UK to be systematically making unlawful payments, that would put the entire programme at risk.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question: what do other countries do? As a Eurosceptic, I always ask whether we are gold-plating regulations and what other countries do. The risk I described is not theoretical. There was a similar case in 2012 concerning a manufacturer of frozen fish products in Spain. The European Commission opened a formal investigation to determine whether the type of aid proposed was compatible with the internal market. It concluded that it was not, which resulted in the entire project being cancelled and the funds disallowed. If we look at what happened with that case and the approach we have taken with other large processors, we have to be consistent and recognise the risks of doing what the hon. Gentleman urges us to do.

It is not all bad news for Grimsby, however. There are a lot of good projects that have been supported through the European fisheries fund. Some 31 projects carried out by seafood businesses in the Grimsby area have already received some £3.2 million of European fisheries funding under the current programme. Individual grants have ranged from £4,000 to £1.2 million. Those projects have already delivered a wide range of local benefits, including port improvements, new processing units and ice plant facilities in the fish market, which have allowed local businesses to grow and prosper. When I visited the Grimsby Seafood Village, I saw a lot of those businesses benefiting from new premises and new investment to allow them to take their businesses forward.

While very large companies would be excluded from such support under most scheme rules due to their size, there are also significant general EU restrictions on large companies receiving state aid. That is simply because the European Commission has concerns that large subsidies in the fish processing sector would seriously distort the market. That is why the de minimis ceiling for state aid has been set at €30,000 over a three-year period. Additionally, the European Commission is explicit in stating that aid can be used only to support activity that a company would not otherwise undertake. That is what they call the incentive effect, and it is contained in article 7 of the fisheries block exemption regulation, which stipulates:

“Aid shall be considered to have an incentive effect if it enables the beneficiary to carry out activities or projects which it would not have carried out as such in the absence of the aid.”

I am not sure that we can make that case with Young’s.

[Austin Mitchell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. First, he is telling us why it cannot be done, but fish is only a part of the fish meals prepared by Young’s. There are other ingredients, whether carrots or chips or whatever. This is food manufacturing, so why can it not get support for the other sides of the process, which would help it to expand? The problem is that the alternative available sources of fishing finance mentioned by the Minister are only small-scale stuff compared with the big investment need of Young’s. Secondly, what are the British Government doing in Europe to change the situation?

[George Eustice]

I will come on to that second point, but on the hon. Gentleman’s first point about Young’s selling products that are not predominantly fish, when I had that meeting with officials I said, “Go and look at Young’s website and look at their entire product range. Let’s see what they are actually selling.” We could not find a product that was not fish or predominantly fish or one that would not fall within the definition of fish product under the regulations.

I want to finish the point that I was making about investment. Taking a broader perspective across the Humber, most businesses have benefited from some large-scale investment. Some £260 million in public and private funding is being invested under the local enterprise partnership growth programme. There is also the electrification of the east coast main line right out to the coast, so we are doing many things to help Grimsby.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second point about what the Government are doing, the Government recognise not only that large companies are often part of the driving force behind growth in the regions, but also that they can in many cases have the greatest impact on the environment. As such, we are in discussion with the European Commission about ensuring that when it comes to investment in environmental protection or upgrading a plant’s facilities to help the environment, we may indeed be able to change the block exemption rules. We will work with the Commission on that for the benefit of those sectors of UK industry that stand to benefit, including the companies discussed today. We have already raised the matter with the Commission and if we get the proposal through, it could be of benefit to companies operating in the aquaculture and fish processing sectors and would at least help to support their investments in some of their environmental improvement, which we would encourage.

In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for his efforts in securing the debate. I reassure him that I did not just sign a letter and send it back. When I saw the draft, I was clear with officials that I wanted a meeting to get to grips with the issue. Having discussed the matter with our lawyers in some depth, I am afraid that my conclusion was that their interpretation and the Marine Management Organisation’s approach had been right, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to set out what we have done and the attempts that I made on his behalf to explore this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Food Fraud

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will also say that that is the way forward. It is not only about routine checks or risk assessment-based checks but turning up unannounced.

The hon. Lady rightly made a point about Troop and the FSA leadership, and clarity of roles. She also talked about the police’s powers of arrest, and I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), a former Minister in the Department who also has great experience, discussed the importance of cultural change, which is crucial. He rightly talked about the importance of driving this through every area, including catering. It has to go deep into every individual sector and employee as well as the bosses and the leadership. The importance of caterers was brought home in the horsemeat scandal, because horsemeat was appearing not only in hospitals and schools but in the food used by caterers who were supplying Royal Ascot and the royal family—so at least we were all in it together.

On the complexity of the supply chain, Elliott says that we have to recognise that, even though it is more desirable to have shorter supply chains and to encourage food retailers and providers to move towards them, we are in a global system, under which global intelligence and the pursuit of crime come into play. He also says, wisely, that ultimately the food price wars that take place from time to time, including now, are not good for the consumer if they jeopardise food authenticity or—heaven help us—food safety.

The hon. Member for York Outer spoke up strongly for British farming and food produce. He talked about the gold standard of British farming and I agree with him. Curiously, when we were on the Government Benches, others would shout at us about gold-plating, but that is exactly the gold standard he was talking about. That is the reason our exports to many other countries are doing well—they demand the standards of animal welfare, hygiene and testing that this country delivers. Regulation is a darn good thing when it protects the consumer and allows us to export around the world. Curiously, the FSA has traditionally been looked on as the gold standard of food regulation.

The hon. Gentleman also talked wisely about the importance of knowing where our food actually comes from. There is a great deal of work to do on that right across the population, ourselves included. There is real value in knowing where food comes from; it ties into so many good things.

The Labour party is very clear—as we were when we were in government—that the consumer has always to be put first. That is why, when in government, we established a strong and independent Food Standards Agency, which had a powerful reach right across Government to regulate this vital industry that creates so many jobs and that wants the very highest standards. However, the changes brought about by tinkering with the machinery of government have jeopardised that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Professor Elliott says in his report that when the FSA had control of authenticity testing in 2007-08, under the previous Government, it took the decision, as an independent body, to cut spending on the testing programme. If the hon. Gentleman had been a Minister at the time and had received a submission recommending such a cut, would he have agreed with it or might he have questioned it?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I was not the Minister at the time, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to continue to make his point, because Professor Chris Elliott was unable to address the detail. Will he confirm whether authenticity testing continued even though it had been reduced?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Yes, it continued, but the point Elliott makes is that the FSA, as an independent body, took the decision to start winding down authenticity testing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Let me put it back to the hon. Gentleman: when the coalition Government entered office in 2010, one of their first decisions in DEFRA was to split away authenticity testing. At that point, did they think it was appropriate to increase investment in it? We could go back and forth on this issue, but authenticity testing was still happening at that time, even if it had been reduced. I am interested in the detail, but it was continuing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on securing the debate. He expressed some disappointment about the number of Members attending, but we have had a really substantive event; it does not take away from the gravity of the subject because the speeches made have really got to grips with the issues. Let me start by making it absolutely clear that food fraud is totally unacceptable: it is a crime, and this Government will not stand by while consumers are duped and deceived.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) made very clear, food and drink manufacturing is important to this country. It is our largest manufacturing sector, a significant contributor to economic growth and a big employer. British food is renowned throughout the world for its quality, and our farming industry is world-renowned for our high animal welfare standards. The integrity of our food supply chain is essential for the great reputation of our exports, as well as for the confidence of consumers at home.

I want to say a little about the action that the Government and others have already taken since the horsemeat scandal broke at the beginning of last year. First, there has been robust testing of meat by industry and by the Government, with more than 50,000 tests of processed beef products carried out during that time, and I can say that no horsemeat was present in any of those 50,000 tests undertaken since the initial scandal at the beginning of last year. The Government have provided an additional £2 million of funding to local authorities for food sampling in the current financial year to help them carry out that vital consumer protection role.

We have commissioned additional sampling and testing for authenticity in response to intelligence that has been received. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire cited the example of lamb kebabs that did not contain as much lamb as they ought to have done. There has been comprehensive sampling of take-away meals to seek undeclared meat and undeclared allergens, which are another cause of concern. We have also instigated the development of new testing to ascertain provenance and country of origin, so that we can check that the country of origin that is stated on the label is correct and that those who claim that products come from the UK are being honest.

Finally on testing, we are developing and road-testing a new method to detect undeclared offal in processed meat products. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asked me what area we would look at next and where we think there might be additional problems. This is an area that we highlighted very early on. That is why we have been developing testing in the area.

At the end of last year, the FSA set up a new intelligence hub to collect, analyse and share information on emerging risks. We have also taken action to empower consumers to understand where their food comes from. That includes improved country of origin labelling requirements for products such as lamb and pork that have been set at an EU level, which take effect from April next year. The UK argued strongly for those changes. We are also improving the public procurement of food and catering services to provide schools and hospitals with high-quality British food.

A great deal has been done, but this debate has focused very much on the final report of Professor Christopher Elliot, which was published last Thursday. I want to say at the outset that the Government have accepted all Professor Elliott’s recommendations. As I said earlier, many of them are already being implemented. We will be taking forward other improvements that were recommended by him to ensure that consumers have absolute confidence in the food that they buy. I think that there can be a universal consensus around the House about the key point that Professor Elliott made: the consumer must come first.

Chief among Professor Elliott’s recommendations was the formation of a new food crime unit, based within the Food Standards Agency. That will build on the intelligence hub that was established in the FSA at the end of last year, but will add investigative powers. We have made a commitment to establish the unit and it will be fully operational by the end of the year. Initially, it will focus on building the intelligence and evidence picture of the risks and nature of food fraud in the UK.

It is important to note that Professor Elliott made it clear both in his interim report and his final report that the incentives for organised crime to get involved in food fraud are high. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) highlighted that in his contribution. Although Professor Elliott stated that he was unable to find any credible evidence of serious organised criminals operating in this area in the UK, he highlighted the serious risk of that happening, given the incentives. The Government are not at all complacent about that. If there is any evidence of criminality in our food supply chains, we are determined to find it and fight it.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Ogmore, highlighted the importance of whistleblowing. That is the subject of one of the main recommendations made by Professor Elliott. There is a concern that employees and others who have knowledge of food fraud do not feel that they have the right mechanism through which to alert people. The FSA has had a whistleblowing service, but it is fair to say that the awareness of it has not been sufficiently high. The FSA is looking seriously at steps that can be taken to increase people’s knowledge of the whistleblowing service. In addition, steps are being taken by the food industry to put in place similar measures to make it easier for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing.

Linked to that issue is the need for better intelligence gathering and sharing across Government and the industry to improve our ability to protect consumers. As a number of hon. Members said, Professor Elliott spoke about the need for a safe haven for industry so that businesses can share intelligence in a way that does not compromise commercially sensitive information. The FSA has made a commitment to improve its systems for dealing with sensitive information and to facilitate the kind of intelligence sharing and analysis for which Professor Elliott called. We will work with the industry to facilitate its development of a safe haven to contribute to that intelligence-sharing process.

A number of hon. Members, including the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), talked about the importance of supply chain audits. That is another key theme throughout Professor Elliott’s report that we want to learn from. Professor Elliott highlighted the action that the food industry has already taken to assure the integrity of its supply chains and restore consumer confidence following the horsemeat fraud.

Professor Elliott made a number of key recommendations for the industry on that issue. First, he said that there should be a shift of emphasis towards the use of unannounced audits and the use of sampling as part of the audit process to act as a deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made the point powerfully that we need to have unannounced audits if the audits are to be meaningful.

Secondly, Professor Elliott made an important point about duplication in the audit process. The hon. Member for Ogmore has talked about Government Members being negative about regulation. We believe in having regulation where it serves a purpose, but we should all share the hope that we can remove duplication. Professor Elliott made the point that a lot of retailers are doing similar audits, but with slight differences. There is a good case for the British Retail Consortium bringing its members together to review their audit standards and give consistency to their approach to audits so that there is a single industry audit system. He also called for the introduction of a new fraud module in the audit, which is incredibly important.

We must recognise what the industry has done to restore confidence in the food supply chain. I commend the work that the Food and Drink Federation has done to introduce a guide to help its members protect themselves against the risk of food fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to that. Although a number of hon. Members, notably the former Minister, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), highlighted concerns about the catering industry, it is important to note the good work that is being done by the British Hospitality Association to engage small catering businesses on good practice in food authenticity, and its work with Whitbread to develop an audit standard for larger food service businesses. He is right to highlight the concern and there might be further difficulties in making progress on that front, but we welcome the work that the industry has done.

The shadow Minister spoke about the machinery of government. He asked why, after the interim report called for a change in the machinery of government, Professor Elliott seems to have stepped back slightly from that. Professor Elliott spells out the reason quite clearly on page 49, where he highlights the fact that representations were made to him regarding the machinery of government changes. He says:

“The review investigated this issue and was able to ascertain that the winding down of the FSA’s food authenticity programme was initiated prior to the machinery of government changes. While not attributing any blame for this decision, it was certainly not helpful”.

The final point he makes is that wherever the boundaries are drawn in the machinery of government, there will still be a need for different parts of the machinery to work together. That is why his ultimate conclusion is that wherever the boundaries are drawn, the most important priority is to have better co-ordination. That is exactly what we will deliver with the food crime unit.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse spoke about the vital role of local authorities, and around 2,500 trading standards officers provide an important part of our field force in that area. As he knows, we have made available an extra £2 million per year, and the Food Standards Agency runs training programmes for those 2,500 officers in the field. Local authorities have a legal responsibility to do that work under the Food Safety Act 1990, and a number of protocols and service agreements that the FSA has with local authorities set out exactly what is required, which is monitored centrally by the FSA. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there could be a mixed picture, with some local authorities being better than others, but the FSA monitors them and holds them to their service agreements and requirements.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

In my exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), I accepted that this issue is not necessarily about extra funding, and it is certainly not about party political control because there are good and bad local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said he believed that the FSA had information about which local authorities were good and which could perform better. Is the Minister personally examining that in discussions with the FSA or with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government? Getting those local authorities to raise their game, whatever the reason, is an objective that I am sure the Minister holds. Will he reassure the House that he is considering that issue?

[George Eustice]

The FSA manages and monitors the work of local authorities, but one of Professor Elliott’s recommendations is that we should have a new committee on food integrity and food fraud. I will chair that committee, and it will be attended by my colleagues and a Minister from the Department of Health. We will discuss those issues and monitor the situation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

Let me mention some of the other points that Members have raised. Sanctions were mentioned, and it is important to note that the maximum penalty is already 10 years. Sentences are ultimately a matter for the courts and the Ministry of Justice, but 10 years is quite a significant sentence. A number of Members asked why we have been so slow to get prosecutions, but as many will know, the City of London police are leading the investigation. There have been five arrests and two prosecutions, which are currently going through the courts. Hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment on ongoing legal cases, but we should recognise that the City of London police have faced challenges as they have had to engage with many different police forces across the European Union to bring prosecutions together, which has taken some time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the issue of labelling in the European Union. From April next year we will introduce improved country of origin labelling measures for pork, lamb and goat. In future—just as has been the case for beef for the last decade or so—pigs and sheep must be reared and slaughtered in the country that claims to be the country of origin. That is similar to the situation that pertains for beef production. On traceability, provisions have been in place for more than 12 years, and EC regulation 178/2002 requires all member states to establish a means of monitoring where the food has come from at every stage of production. That legal requirement is enforced by the FSA in this country and by other member states.

My hon. Friend made the good point—my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also alluded to this—that however good the traceability and labelling systems in place, a long supply chain is not conducive to eliminating food fraud. It is important for retailers to look at their supply chains and try to shorten them. It is also encouraging that many consumers have taken more interest in where their food comes from, and we need both consumers and retailers to take a little more interest.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he did not have the chance to reply to this point last Thursday. Will the police have powers of arrest? We will not be rushed by future business, Madam Deputy Speaker. We need to know whether the police will have powers of arrest, and who will pick up the bill for the additional costs of the food crime unit.

[George Eustice]

The key point is that the new food crime unit will have investigative powers, and it is envisaged that people from the National Crime Agency in the police force will be seconded to that unit. As my hon. Friend knows, the police always have powers of arrest—indeed, they have arrested people in this current investigation. The new food crime unit will be properly linked to the police force so that it has those powers.

Finally, let me turn to lab capacity. Professor Elliott raises a specific concern about whether there is consistency between existing private labs and their approach to testing. As a result, we accept his recommendation and have asked the analytical methods working group—an advisory panel to the Government—to consider that issue and ensure consistency. We had no lack of lab capacity in the crisis last year. In fact, our excellent laboratories at the Food and Environment Research Agency in York were on stand-by if they were needed, although in the event they were not. Private labs like LCG, which I will visit tomorrow, led on most of that work. My hon. Friend also mentioned the Danish model and expressed a view—perhaps because she has Danish roots—that it is better than the Dutch model. When it comes to the food crime unit, it is difficult to compare the Danish or the Dutch model with what we have in the UK because we have some 2,500 trading standards officers in local authorities, who are an integral part of our protection in that area.

It is perhaps fitting to conclude where my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer ended his remarks, and with Professor Elliott’s conclusion that we have some of the safest food in the world. I completely agree with him that we should protect the reputation of our hard-working farmers. The Government have introduced a new Government procurement plan which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out, will encourage greater sourcing of local food. We are also working to encourage more schools to take a greater interest in and promote food and an appreciation of food in the curriculum. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the discussion. We have covered many detailed issues, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on securing the debate.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who I know has been a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I am sure he will recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, that I pursued these issues when I was a member of the Select Committee. It would be remiss of me of not to mention Mono, my now deceased pet dog. He was a rescue dog from the RSPCA who, like many others, was a wonderfully dedicated friend, albeit with some behavioural issues.

Let me deal first with some of the issues on which the Government have made progress—tackling irresponsible owners, for example. We have increased the penalty for serious dog attacks and have made it an offence to have a dog attack on private land. We have tightened the law, too, when it comes to dog attacks on guide dogs, and we have introduced compulsory chipping. I recognise, however, that today’s theme has been about a different issue—the welfare of puppies. I have always been clear that we must look after the welfare of puppies and ensure that they are properly socialised. As many hon. Members have mentioned, that is crucial for the behaviour of the dogs as they grow up and mature.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked me to tear up my script and speak from the heart. I can confirm that I never asked for a script in the first place. I scribbled some notes of what Members said, and I want to use the available time to deal with as many points as I can.

On pet passports, I can confirm that a new EU regulation is tightening the rules of the EU pet passport scheme. From December this year, it will no longer be possible for a dog under 12 weeks to be vaccinated prior to transportation under the scheme. There is then a three-week period throughout which the puppy must remain in residence before it can be moved. In practice, that means that from December this year, no puppy or dog can be lawfully transported to this country under the pet passport scheme unless it is at least 15 weeks old.

Many hon. Members rightly raised the issue of the internet. The biggest concerns put to us by the animal welfare charities related not so much to the problem of puppy farms as to that of backstreet breeders that are completely unregulated and unlicensed. In many cases, the people involved are not the right people to be breeding dogs at all, and in the worst cases, they maltreat the puppies deliberately to make them violent by giving them violent traits—the so-called “status dogs”. That is a major concern, which is why at the end of last year, my noble Fried Lord de Mauley brought together a group in connection with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to put in place a voluntary code, which has been running since the beginning of the year. I can tell hon. Members today that, since that code was put in place, 100,000 adverts have been removed from the internet. I pay tribute to the work done by the internet companies that acted so responsibly and by all the volunteers who took part in monitoring the internet for that purpose. Given the scale of the problem, I hope hon. Members will understand that making further progress on the internet continues to be our main priority.

Let me touch on the contentious issue of the five-litter threshold, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is right. When I sat on the Committee, we highlighted some concerns about the five-litter threshold being too high. Hon. Members who follow what has happened will know that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 states that anyone carrying on a business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence, irrespective of the number of litters. However, a second clause, always intended as an anti-avoidance clause, said that irrespective of who owns the puppies on a particular premise, a licence is compulsory if there are more than five litters. That was to prevent people from claiming that some of dogs belonged to their brothers, sisters, father or whoever.

Over the last few years, however, or since the legislation was introduced, it has been apparent that local authorities have taken the five-litter threshold to be the one to work towards. It became something of a mystery, which we managed to solve last night. The reason is that in 1999 when the Act was put in place under the last Government, the Home Office sent out a circular indicating for local authorities that in most situations five litters should be taken as the threshold to use.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

Let me finish the point. Since that time, it would be fair to say—from all the representations made during today’s debate and from the recommendations of the Select Committee—that this is the wrong way to interpret the legislation. Those carrying on a business of breeding and selling dogs should be required to have a licence. I can confirm that we will write to local authorities to provide new clarity through new guidance so that they can interpret the Act in the spirit intended by the House today.

Pet shops are a key item of today’s debate. It is important to recognise that only about 2% of pet shops sell cats and dogs—around 70 in total—and they are already regulated and licensed. They are regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked me to clarify whether local authorities have the additional power to place restrictions on which animals can be sold at a licensed pet shop establishment. I can confirm that they do have the power to restrict the number of animals that can be sold. He asked, too, about the issue of ambiguity and contestability in that context. Let me clarify that the intention of the provision is for local authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis whether a particular premise is suitable for a particular animal to be sold. It is not necessary for local authorities to change the law; it is for them to have considerable discretion in making a judgment about whether it is appropriate for certain animals to be sold on the authority’s premises.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the important point that much can be done within the existing regulations. I agree. In January this year, along with the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and many other charities and organisations, we contributed to some model licence conditions that were made available to all local authorities and were published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. These included 50 pages of recommendations about the sorts of conditions that should be included in a licence for dog-breeding premises. There were strict provisions on the need for social interaction with humans, which should apply for the whole day if the buyers were present all the time.

In addition, in September 2013 we published the model conditions for pet vending, which also set out strict conditions for pet shops about the need for interaction with staff and humans. It is specifically recommended that at least four times a day a human should spend at least 20 minutes with the puppies on sale. We have already put in place important guidance on these issues.

I would like to conclude by saying that we have had a really important debate. I, too, have received many hundreds of letters on the issue and it is clearly of great importance to the country. We have 8 million dogs in this country and we are a nation of animal lovers.

[John McDonnell]

Before the Minister concludes, will he respond on the issue of local authority resources, which was raised by several Members?

[George Eustice]

All I can say on that issue is that the internet will make it easier for some local authorities to identify where they have a problem. One thing we have done in the new code, agreed with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, is provide that where a licence is held it must be advertised, and where it is not held contact details should be advertised. That gives local authorities a ready way to identify where they have the most serious problems.

In conclusion, we have had a good and important debate. The Government are committed to improving animal welfare, as I am personally. I hope that my comments today will help reassure the House that the Government are doing a considerable amount to move this item forward.