Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
We have already agreed targets that are now in law regarding PM10 and PM2.5, and we are well below those targets. We will continue to work on this. I know that the House is eager to see the outcome of the clean air strategy, which I expect to be published shortly. I can assure the hon. Lady that this issue is close to my heart, especially the question of particulate matter, because I am very conscious of the impact that it can have. However, we need to be careful when we read some of the reports, because there is often a correlation link but not necessarily a causal link, which means that we still need to do research on these matters. I am pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care, through Public Health England, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are undertaking that research.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Our current high standards, including on import requirements, will apply when we leave the EU. Some of them, such as the ban on the use of growth-promoting hormones, are already in domestic legislation. Others, such as the ban on chlorine washing of poultry, will be brought on to our statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Countries seeking access to our markets in future will have to abide by our standards.
Neil Parish
Ministers are naturally keen to raise welfare standards in this country, and to reduce the use of antibiotics and produce greater and better food than we already have, but if we are undermined by imports, that will put farmers out of business and reduce global animal welfare. Will Ministers therefore accept the amendment that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has tabled to ensure that imports are not allowed into this country if they do not meet our standards of production?
George Eustice
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we had a good discussion on these matters in the Bill Committee, and I look forward to discussing his amendment on Report. Our view is that the types of measure that he has outlined would probably not be right, because it is sometimes possible to recognise equivalence, and our standards do not have to be identical in drafting regulations. However, there are a number of other approaches that some countries take, including scrutiny and oversight roles for Parliaments as trade deals are discussed.
Fisheries Bill
Neil Parish ExcerptsWednesday 21st November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this fishing debate, and I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s speech. On this grey November day in this House, where we seem to have little to cheer us up at the moment, fishing is one of the things that we can cheer ourselves up with, because we now have the opportunity to get more fish, for our fishermen and under-10 metre fleet to have more quota, and for anglers to access more fish, which is another great economic opportunity. There will also be more fish for our processors to process.
The whole thing about bringing back control of our fishing is that we can actually put right the wrongs that happened about 40 years ago. There is no doubt—those of us in and around coastal constituencies know this full well—that if anybody suffered when we went into the then Common Market, it was our fishing industry. As we consider the Fisheries Bill, let us make sure that we right those wrongs and get our stocks back, and ensure that those who fish in our waters—if we allow them to do so—fish under our rules and regulations. Let us ensure that we have a sustainable fishing policy.
I very much welcome the fact that the fisheries White Paper says:
“Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU.”
For far too long our fisheries have been controlled by the EU under the CFP, and for too long our fishermen have been managed as a single EU exclusive economic zone. The Bill gives us the framework to take control of our waters, to come out of the CFP and to become an independent coastal state. The UK alone will be responsible for our exclusive economic zone of some 200 miles or the median line. Now we need to make sure that the Bill works. However, it can be improved, and I welcome the fact that the Labour party is taking a positive view on the Bill, because it always helps when there is not too much of a great political divide across the House.
It is not clear to me what practical arrangements the Government have made for enforcement when foreign fishing boats have access to our waters, because there is no doubt—under a no-deal Brexit, or any other Brexit that we achieve—that we will need to ensure that we have control of our waters. We also have to ensure that the cameras and systems on the boats that monitor fishing are working and not being switched off. Those systems not only cover quantities of fish and who is fishing, but work very well as far as discards are concerned. If ever there was a benefit of coming out of the CFP, is it with regard to discards. Not only is it a huge waste of resource to throw back into the sea good, healthy fish, most of which will die and probably putrefy the sea bed, but it is important that we land all the fish that are caught, as that means that we can have a proper monitor of what is in the sea and what is being caught so that we know that the science is absolutely right. Those of us who have been involved in fishing for many years, as many Members have, will find that while the scientists say one thing, the fishermen will tell us that they could walk to America on the back of cod because there are so many in the sea. There may be a slight exaggeration, but I think that Members get the gist of my argument.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The root of the disjunction between science and the industry is the fact that the advice that is given is often based on data that are very old—almost two years old by the time they are used for decision making. Does he agree that in this brave new world of fisheries management, one of our first priorities ought to be the quick and dirty use of the data that are being harvested by the scientists?
Neil Parish
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—he is right. I think that DEFRA is working much more with fishermen, and they will need to work more closely to ensure that the collection of that information happens more quickly. We also need to learn from the monitoring of how fish are caught and what is happening on the fishing boats, because all this is important. There needs to be trust between the fishermen and DEFRA officials, because that is sometimes lacking. There is a great deal that can be positive. I know that the Secretary of State and our Fisheries Minister are really driving towards that, and I think we can do it.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The point that is often ignored in fishing debates is that fish are born in one place, and then swim and live in another.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Fish will move, perhaps because of water temperature or where the food is. Also, of course, they do not always swim together. Cod swim together and haddock swim together, so we can go out and make sure that we catch only one species of fish, but other types of fish swim separately, and we will often catch many species. That is especially the case in the south-west waters, where we are very much a mixed fishery, and that is why the discards are so important. We do not want the fishermen to target particular species, but we want them to be able to catch fish and land it all. The challenge is going to be making sure that we recompense fishermen for delivering fish that they did not have the quota to catch, but do not stimulate them into catching fish that they perhaps should not be catching.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend welcome the study by one of the northern universities and CEFAS to look at zonal attachment as a way of assessing fish stocks within the United Kingdom 200 miles from the median line limit?
Neil Parish
As always, my hon. Friend speaks great sense on fishing, and so she should, given her knowledge of it. Zonal attachment is an interesting way of looking at this. When we are managing our own waters, we should be able to manage that much more quickly, so that an area that can be fished can be opened up, or if an area needs to be closed down, for reasons of the environment or fish breeding, we can do so much more quickly.
Dr Sarah Wollaston
Further to the point about zonal attachment, does my hon. Friend agree with Brixham fishermen that sprats would be an ideal kind of species to look at, because 90% of them are caught within the 12-mile limit but we have only 52% of the total allowable catch? Does he agree that that would be a much more sensible way to proceed?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. By moving to a different system, we perhaps remove ourselves from some of the existing quota restrictions. Because those are historical, and because we did not necessarily get a good deal—far from it—when we went into the common fisheries policy, we have the opportunity to do this.
Neil Parish
I think I am going to use up most of my time at this rate, but I give way.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend, who is being very generous with his time. He may or may not be aware that in 2015 Conservative MEPs tried to force the European Union to allow individual member states to use European fisheries funding to help fishing communities to implement the discard ban on the quayside. As we are now coming out of the CFP, will he join me in urging DEFRA and the devolved authorities to use the funding that they have to help to implement these new regulations on the quayside, because we are leaving it up to individual fishermen and organisations to do a lot of the work themselves, and some are working to very tight budgets?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about how we help these fishermen. Can a certain amount of help be given regarding the fuel needed to bring back the fish? What is the value of the fish when it is brought in? Is it going to be sold on the open market, and do we then put a super-levy on it so that bringing it back is not too attractive? These are some of the issues that I am sure that our Fisheries Minister and Secretary of State will deal with in due course, if not necessarily in the Bill.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend is displaying that his grasp of fisheries is at least as great as his grasp of farming. As he develops this thesis, which is essentially about replacing discards and quotas with closed areas and other measures to preserve fish stocks, will he say a word about industrial fishing? While it is true that fishermen should be able to keep what they catch, industrial fishing sweeps the ocean floor, and the CFP has been singularly ineffective at dealing with its environmental consequences.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We were talking earlier about pulse fishing, which is used in particular by the Dutch. That causes huge damage to not only the seabed but, potentially, fish stocks. I often think that going out to fish should be much more a question of licking a finger to see which way the wind is blowing, but it does not work like that anymore. We use huge sonar equipment so that we know exactly where the fish are, and we can hoover them up in massive amounts. As we fish, we therefore have to be careful that we keep the stocks sustainable. I always say that the difference between fishing and farming is that with farming, we can at least replace the stock if we want to, but fish are a wild stock and must be bred in the sea, so we cannot take out too many fish if we want to keep the stock sustainable. Those are very good points.
You probably do not want me to go on for too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will do my level best to move on quickly. We need more clarity in the Bill about the practical arrangements, which we have talked about a lot, and I look forward to seeing more detail. In particular, I am concerned that fisheries might get bogged down in unnecessary bureaucracy. Many of these companies are made up of five employees or fewer, so we must ensure that the burden of bureaucracy is as small as possible.
There are concerns that once we have left the EU, we will no longer have an automatic right to land fish in any EU ports. That interesting point has already been raised today. While I am very enthusiastic about our getting out of the common fisheries policy and getting back these stocks of fish, we have to ensure not only that we have access to EU markets, but that too much of our fish is not landed in EU ports, because we have to make the best of the processing. All these things are essential. I know that some of them are not covered in the detail of the Bill, but they need to be recommended.
I feel that we can do a much better job with our own Fisheries Bill and by taking back control of our waters. Our fishermen, fish processors and anglers can and must have a better deal. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware that there is a huge expectation that we are going to do much better as an independent coastal state than as part of the common fisheries policy. Let us welcome the Bill, make a few little alterations that might be necessary, and do a much better job than has been done in the past under the CFP.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
With your permission, Mr Speaker, perhaps at Holland Park comprehensive we could make it part of the design and technology projects that our respective children are engaged in, to ensure that there are drinking fountains in west London and beyond.
We are working with water companies and other commercial operators to ensure that drinking fountains are more widespread. It was a great Victorian innovation to bring clean drinking water to everyone and ensure that we did not have to rely on private provision for the very stuff of life. We will ensure that there are more drinking fountains, and further steps will be announced later this year.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Some 3 billion litres of water a day are leaking out of water companies’ infrastructure pipes, which is enough to fill 1,273 Olympic swimming pools. Private companies have invested a lot of money in infrastructure in the past, but are they now spending too much on shareholders and chief executives, and not enough on actually securing the infrastructure? We need to save water, especially at a time of drought.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things I have said to the water companies is that in the past few years they have spent far too much on financial engineering and not enough on real engineering. As a result, new targets have been set to reduce leakage in order to both protect the environment and help consumers. One thing that would not help consumers, I am afraid, is Labour’s programme to renationalise the water companies, which would mean taxpayers’ money going into the hands of the same shareholders, rather than being spent on our environment.
Agriculture Bill
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
This is an historic moment, as we last had an agriculture Bill in this House in 1947, since when there have been 15 Prime Ministers and many Governments. We therefore really need to get this Bill right.
The Bill is about agriculture and the environment not just today, but in the future, so I welcome our Secretary of State’s commitment on food security. During the Bill’s passage, I will look for us to adopt for England provisions similar to those in schedule 3 for Wales to ensure that we can support high-quality food production and high animal welfare standards in England and across the United Kingdom. Food security—the ability to have plenty of food, and good food, for our constituents—is very much a public good, and we will debate that further.
While I very much welcome the Bill, I am disappointed that my Select Committee was not offered the opportunity to subject it to prelegislative scrutiny. However, the Secretary of State and Ministers should not worry, because we will do our utmost to ensure that we scrutinise the Bill carefully, clause by clause. While the Bill is very good, I am sure that a little tweak here and there will not do it any harm.
I welcome the long transitional period because it gives farmers certainty over that time. We also need to ensure that as we build stewardship schemes, land management schemes and environmental schemes, we also enter into contracts with farmers of at least five to 10 years. Ministers and the Secretary of State might say that we cannot bind successive Governments, but we must ensure that we have a contract in place so that land management and farming can go hand in hand. We talk as though the environment, food production and farming are all separate, but they are not—they are very much combined. I believe that farmers are the original friends of the earth, and we will ensure that we deliver better soil, a better environment and great food while having as much food security as possible in this country.
I also welcome the Bill’s attempt to tackle unfairness in the supply chain.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend moves on, I share his ambition in those respects, but does he agree that as the general framework for subsidy support or payment for ecosystem services lies in this Bill, and the general framework for the environment will lie in the environment Bill, it is appropriate that issues such as the contracting he describes should be covered in secondary legislation?
Neil Parish
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s intervention. He is right that that can be dealt with in secondary legislation, but I am, shall I say, a little bit naturally suspicious, so I am trying to ensure that we get everything covered as soon as possible. I like the Bill’s direction of travel towards the environment, but I am convinced that having good, healthy, affordable food is absolutely essential, and that is one of the issues towards which I will maintain my driving forces.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. The question of how the Select Committee will proceed under his chairmanship seems an important one to resolve. I think that many of us would welcome his driving on that issue, as long as it is done in a way that recognises that we are not trying to build it into the two pieces of primary legislation, which would confuse the issue.
Neil Parish
I will take on board my right hon. Friend’s wisdom, and we will look at that as we go through the Select Committee process to ensure that do not do that. I thank him for his intervention.
The Bill very much attempts to tackle unfairness in the supply chain. That is essential. We need to ensure that the groceries code covers all aspects of trade—from the big retailers through to the processors and right down to the big suppliers—so that we can have true fairness in the supply chain. Often, when a consumer buys a product, enough money is paid to the retailer to ensure that there is enough money for the producer, and it is a question of ensuring that that money then gets back to the producer. There is an uneven relationship, with producers often being the weaker partner and not having enough strength in the market.
I welcome the proposals to request data, which will improve transparency in the supply chain, but the way in which that increased transparency will improve fairness in the supply chain remains unclear. Furthermore, there are proposals to streamline support payments and reduce bureaucracy, which I believe we all welcome. I look forward to the Secretary of State and the farming Minister coming before our Select Committee to explain exactly how that can be done. Whether people love or hate the common agricultural policy, there is no doubt that we can have an agricultural policy that suits the four nations of the United Kingdom and that we can devise a better system than the one designed for the 28 countries of the European Union. I have direct knowledge of that, having previously chaired the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, so I know that we can do better and I look forward to that.
We welcome this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape British farming and the environment. We can improve policies such as our stewardship scheme, for example by ensuring that it runs for a minimum of 10 years and involves forestry. We can also ensure that we do not have to work out when a tree is a sapling and when a sapling is a tree. If we want to include water management, our schemes can include planting trees on banks to hold back water and so on. We can do so much better, and I look forward to hearing about that from Ministers.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Committee on which I serve, agree that there is a real danger that it will be the big landowners and farmers who will be best able to apply for environmental grants? We have to guard against that by reducing bureaucracy, as he has indicated.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have to ensure that applying for grants is simple enough for all farmers, not just the big landowners who can employ offices full of people to do that, and I believe that we can. With some of the ideas coming forward about how we make payments, we can also ensure that, as we transition, family farms and smaller applicants can have less taken from them in the first instance. There are ways we can make this much more palatable.
Upland farming, which the Secretary of State mentioned, is very important, especially because of lamb and beef production. It is coupled with that great environment on the hillside, and we will not be able to pay public money just to keep sheep and cattle on the hillside; we have to ensure that they are profitable. Profit is what will drive this because—this point has already been made—if you are in the black, you can go more green. That is absolutely essential.
We produce great food. We also have a very effective poultry industry, although sometimes that is not mentioned. That is why we can produce good-quality chickens for under £5. Let us look at how we deal with our food industry and our production.
Sir Hugo Swire
Does my hon. Friend agree that post Brexit there will be a real opportunity to buy “British first” through the procurement of British-sourced food?
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes a really good point. We must redouble our efforts to encourage our armed forces, our schools and our health service to procure our high-quality British food. Let us ensure that we can feed our nation with our food, because that is absolutely essential.
I also think that healthy food, as a public good, can be recognised naturally across the piece. This is an agricultural Bill, but if we think about the NHS, we could save nearly £2 billion when we consider the type of healthy food that we can produce. Buying from local producers will allow us to reduce our carbon footprint and improve the environment, so we also need joined-up thinking about future-proofing the Bill. If we weaken our farming sector to the extent that we have to import more food from abroad, there will be many consequences. When we import food from other countries, we also import their water and their means of production, and some countries can little afford that. We have to ensure that we continue to produce good, high-quality food and that, if possible, we produce more of it in future.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Let us move from north of the border to North Devon, where, I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituents are watching the progress of the Bill very carefully indeed. Farming is an incredibly important part of our local economy. More than 11% of workers are employed directly in the industry and, of course, that figure increases markedly when we look at all the small businesses and sole traders whose livelihoods rely directly on farming.
Let me be clear that, for us in North Devon, this is about more than just economics. Nearly three quarters of the entire land area of North Devon is farmed. To put it simply, the landscape looks as beautiful as it does because it is managed so expertly by our farmers. They are the stewards of our environment, particularly in an area such as mine with its diverse landscape, as the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, will know because he visited Exmoor over the summer to see the fantastic work being done by the Exmoor Hill Farming Network, which, under challenging circumstances, not only farms productively but looks after that national park environment.
Farming is incredibly important in North Devon, and to underline that I met more than a dozen farmers last Thursday. We had very useful and wide-ranging discussion about the Bill, and I want to thank the NFU in the south-west for arranging it. In that meeting, a series of reasoned and reasonable suggestions was put to me on how the Bill might be improved. I want to run through some of them now, but in doing so I want to make it clear that I will support the Government on Second Reading. I will not be supporting the Opposition’s amendment because, frankly, to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading would be entirely counterproductive and far more about politics than helping our farmers.
One of the main arguments made to me by the farming industry in North Devon is that the Bill needs to focus more on the fundamental purpose of farming, which is the production of food. This is an Agriculture Bill and its greatest impact will be on the industry that feeds our nation, so we must make clear that financial assistance is explicitly linked to agricultural activity. The Bill rewards farmers for public goods to deliver a cleaner and healthier environment, which is to be applauded, but the point made to me is that insufficient significance is placed on the greatest public good, which has to be the production of food in a safe way.
The reality is that financial support is absolutely critical to the survival of many of our farms. Without it, more than four in 10 of all British farms would probably make a financial loss or become economically unviable. Subsidies are crucial, and of course, historically, they have come from the EU under the common agricultural policy.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour, and the interesting thing about many parts of Devon, and North Devon in particular, is that it is mainly permanent pasture and grassland, so farming in the sheep trade and beef trade will keep that environment and the good tourist attraction in the area. Those things are all linked.
Peter Heaton-Jones
That is absolutely the case and that pasture is vital. I think that 51% of the farmed area of Devon is livestock grazing. It makes the county look how it does, and without financial subsidies, the farmers would not be able to undertake their important stewardship of that landscape.
The system of financial support that will replace the common agricultural policy will shape our rural economy for, frankly, generations to come, so it must be introduced cautiously, which is why I welcome the seven-year transition period and the powers in the Bill to extend it if necessary. I also welcome the fact that the Government have guaranteed the overall current level of subsidy spending until 2022—some £46 billion—but let us get the administration of the system right. There is a great deal of frustration among by farmers about the Rural Payments Agency, Natural England and the others who manage the system of payments. The system is not quite working as it should at the moment, and that is an understatement, so, please, in the new system under this Bill, let us get that right for farmers.
Public good is an integral part of the Bill and how payments will be managed. Domestic food production is in itself a public good. Importing food from other countries is environmentally damaging, because of the distances involved. British farmers have—it says here “some of the highest”, but I am going to change that—the highest welfare and quality standards in the world. I am in favour of the move to a system of payments based on the production of public goods, the productivity of our farms and the resilience of our agricultural sector.
I have a great deal of faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the Minister and in the ministerial team, and I want them to give themselves more powers than the Bill provides. I want my right hon. Friend to have the same powers as the Bill gives to the Welsh Farming Minister in schedule 3, which has been talked about a great deal, and I ask that that be reviewed at a later stage.
We are leaving the EU—that decision has been made—so there is uncertainty ahead for our farmers. It is incumbent on us to end that uncertainty, and this Bill is an historic opportunity to do so. We must get the transition right. The Bill makes a good start, but I say in a supportive and helpful way that there is room for improvement. I will oppose the amendment and support the Bill on Second Reading to ensure that as proceedings on it continue, we make it the best Bill possible for North Devon farmers.
Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who put the case very well. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is about to bring together our report, so I must be quite careful not to say exactly what I expect will be in it, but I will set out quite clearly the evidence that we have taken so far.
I want to start with my experience of three weeks ago, when I visited Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. I came across a crossbred dog that was of a pit bull variety. I went into the pen with it—the dog was of good temperament. It had come in as a stray and had to be investigated by the police to see whether it was part pit bull terrier. The police officer decided that it was and that dog was put down. I really was quite shocked by that.
I am a farmer and I believe that any animal that is vicious and cannot be put right should be put down, but not a dog of really good temperament. Deciding whether a dog has pit bull terrier in it is not an exact science: measurements are made of the length of its nose and its conformation. The Minister is also a farmer; he knows very well that when animals are crossbred, sometimes they come out looking exactly like the parents and sometimes they look totally different. I found it shocking that the police officers went through the various measurements and worked out that there was pit bull in a dog, when the dog was of really good temperament. It should be up to Battersea to rehome that dog very carefully. While that dog is out on the street, it may well be given an exemption order to allow the owner to keep it, but the moment that dog comes in to a rescue centre, it has to be inspected and if it considered of a pit bull type, it must be put down irrespective of the dog’s temperament.
The issue is the deed not the breed. I believe that a dog of any breed in the hands of the wrong person can be made vicious by that person beating it, burning and doing all sorts of horrible things to make the dog vicious. Pit bull terriers and pit bull types account for about 20% of the total bites in the country, but a bigger percentage of them bite than do other breeds. Is the dog breed the problem, or do particular owners for particular reasons take those breeds on because they know they can be made to be dangerous and to bite?
I understand the Minister’s point of view. If we said, “Let’s abolish all breed-specific legislation,” the next time a pit bull or any of the other four banned breeds inflicted a really nasty bite, he would be rolled out on to the television and Radio 4 and asked, “Why did you do this, Minister?” Without second-guessing the Select Committee, I suspect we will recommend not total abolition of the breed-specific legislation, but an arrangement where the temperament of the dog can be given much greater consideration. In the Netherlands, for instance, dogs with good temperament can in certain circumstances be rehomed from rescue centres, provided that the new owners are made aware of the dog’s breed and the potential for danger. We can go somewhere with that. Also, there must also be a better way in the 21st century of deciding how much pit bull terrier or any other banned breed there is in a crossbred dog, whether through DNA testing or various measurements of weight and so on. The science is very inexact at the moment, which is also a problem.
Another problem for the Government is that if we are to have breed-specific legislation—I am fearful of mentioning this—we need to add breeds to the list, because other, equally vicious breeds are coming in from Canada and elsewhere as people try to get round the legislation. We need to look at all breeds of dogs and work out which are potentially dangerous and must be watched, and react to that.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the dog’s temperament. We need to come down even more heavily on people who are vicious to their dogs, who breed dogs to be dangerous and who take them out in the streets to be dangerous. It is not really the dogs who need to be sorted out; it is the people. Of course, for the postmen and others who have to go on to people’s properties, recent legislation that makes owners more liable for the actions of their dogs on their own property is very much a step forward and all good stuff.
The Minister will probably talk about microchipping. That is good, but again anyone who goes to Battersea will find that only about 30% of the dogs there have accurate microchips. A dog may have a microchip, but often what is on it is largely fictitious. That is another problem.
The Minister has a problem in that the law on breeding and dealing with dogs works only for the law-abiding. If we are not careful, we will make the laws stricter and stricter for those who microchip their dogs and rear and look after them properly, but those who want to be outside the law will still be outside the law. I suspect that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who in his place, will talk about dog fighting, which has been a real problem in Northern Ireland.
There are all sorts of issues around dangerous dogs and there is a reason for breed-specific legislation, but a key requirement is much sounder science for working out breed, especially of crossbreeds. We must also be able to consider the temperament of the dog, and those of good temperament, irrespective of breed, should be allowed to live. Likewise—this is the other side of the argument—a thoroughly vicious dog of any breed should be put down. As 80% of all dog bites are from non-banned breeds, we could argue that by concentrating on breed-specific legislation, we are missing the real point. We should be bringing in antisocial behaviour orders, more penalties and five-year sentences for those who are cruel to animals. Let us get all that on the statute book and deal with the people out there who are making their animals vicious. Then, quite rightly, we will deal with vicious dogs when they appear.
I was a bit concerned when a Minister in the House of Lords suggested to the Select Committee that we were being soft on dangerous dogs. That is not our point of view. A dangerous dog needs to be dealt with. If its temperament cannot be changed it must be euthanased, but there must be a way for dogs with good temperament to survive and prosper, not be given a death sentence just because they are of a certain breed. That is where we can learn from countries across Europe. Even Scotland now has different laws in this area—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the spokesman for the Scottish National party, is a good member of the Select Committee. We must all work together and look at what is happening across the United Kingdom, because we could do a lot better.
We may not have to repeal the legislation, but we must look at how it is enforced and administered. The police told us in evidence that they want some changes. There is a big responsibility on a police officer who has to work out whether a dog lives or dies, and often different officers will make different decisions because the science is inexact. One officer may say that a dog is perfectly fine and should live, but another will say that there is too much of a banned breed in it, and it must be put down. We must clarify the position.
This is not an easy situation, but at the moment I am very concerned. I do not want to go to Battersea Dogs Home again and see a dog of really good temperament being put down. That is absolutely wrong. We need to find a way to protect social workers, postmen and everyone who needs to go into people’s homes to work.
Helen Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one simple way to protect postal workers and others would be to ensure that those with dogs running free in their house have either an outside post box or a cage behind their letter box? Any dog can bite if it feels threatened.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The postal workers’ unions that gave evidence to the Committee talked about that—especially the cage behind the door. All of us in the Chamber who have canvassed and pushed letters through letter boxes will know that on reaching some doors it is possible to hear the dog barking, but the most terrifying dog is the one that waits behind the door without making a sound. The moment the leaflet is put through the door there is a tremendous whack, and the dog either bites the person’s fingers or gets the leaflet and tears it to shreds. That might be a bonus if it is one of my leaflets.
This is a serious issue, because postmen have to go to those houses. We are changing the rules on that. When dogs have bitten—hopefully before that—putting in a cage would protect the post. If dogs are protecting the property, but that makes it difficult for anyone to go there, there should be a letter box positioned outside the entrance, so that it is not necessary to go in. A dog is territorial and likes to protect its owner and their property, so when people enter that property it is one of the most difficult things for any dog—a collie or any other type. I have had to retreat from a number of farms using a dustbin lid to fend off the dog as I got out. I have then thrown the dustbin lid back in the garden, saying “By the way, you will find your dustbin lid in the garden, because I had to protect myself from the dog.” The dog might not be vicious, but it might still nip and protect the property.
We have to deal with all those things, and I digress a little. I wish the Minister well, and it is good that the petition is being debated, because there is a problem, but if we sit down and deal with it calmly we can sort it out. We need to do cross-party and cross-departmental work on it, with the Home Office as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Education is also relevant, as we need to educate children in school about animal welfare and explain to children and young people that, although there are families in which dogs are treated badly, there are better ways to handle them.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for introducing the debate. There has not been a huge number of speakers, but those who have spoken feel strongly about this issue. It has been an excellent debate, with some really good information shared.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, was particularly interesting and well informed. I was pleased by a lot of what he said, because I started to become interested in this topic on a visit similar to the one he described. I was also particularly interested by what the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about the regimental mascot, which I was not aware of. I wish him all the luck in the world in getting a statue in place. That would be a fantastic tribute.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—I remembered his constituency—said about the 2010 Act. I was not aware of it, so I will be interested to take a look at it. I was also interested to hear his idea of using a chair, rather than a dustbin lid, to fend off dogs. When I go canvassing, I fill my pockets with dog biscuits, which I find can be very useful.
I would like to talk about an experience I had that was similar to the one the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton had. I launched Labour’s animal welfare plan in February from the RSPCA’s Harmsworth Hospital, in north London. As part of that visit I was introduced to a lovely dog, Bailey, who had a great temperament. The hospital staff and I believed that he could have been rehomed, but because he had been typed as a pit bull, that, sadly, could not happen, and, tragically, he was put to sleep the week after my visit. I told the staff that I would take him because he was such a lovely dog, although I did not tell my husband. I was deeply shocked that this dog, which had never done any harm to anybody, was to be put down because of what he looked like.
Neil Parish
The shadow Minister makes a very good point: the dog had done no harm. It was of good temperament and did not have a record of biting people. In this country, we are usually considered innocent until proven guilty, whereas these dogs are considered guilty because they are of a particular breed, and they are then put down, irrespective of temperament. That is exactly the point.
Sue Hayman
That is exactly the point: the dogs are found guilty before having done anything wrong. We have heard that people can secure exemptions from the law in court. However, I said that I would take that dog, that I was a dog owner and that I had always had dogs, so those exemptions are clearly not in place for dogs in rescue centres. Many dogs are being put down entirely unnecessarily.
We heard that we have to ensure that legislation to keep people safe from dangerous dogs has to jointly prioritise public safety and animal welfare. We need to be a lot more pragmatic when it comes to banning certain dogs based only on their breed. As has been said, all dogs can bite and all dogs can be dangerous in the wrong hands, regardless of breed or type or whether they happen to look a certain way. It is therefore clear to me, and to the many animal welfare charities quoted, that any action to tackle dog bites and all other instances of canine aggression must focus on the deed, not the breed.
Sustainable Fisheries
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The first thing to say is that I am in constant communication with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Lady’s point about Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough has been very well articulated, but I would not want to cut across my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady is incredibly generous in the compliments that she pays DEFRA Ministers. May I simply say in return that we in DEFRA are huge fans of the hon. Lady?
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on an excellent White Paper—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee greatly looks forward to scrutinising it. Our fishermen will get their fish back. For 40 years, they have been denied that, and it will be great to see. When we do our deals with the EU, will we also negotiate with Norway and Iceland? The fish move around, especially with the temperature of the water, so let us try to ensure that we do actually catch the fish.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I look forward to giving evidence to his Committee and I am grateful to members of his Committee for their support in the preparation of the White Paper. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; of course we are going to be negotiating with the European Union, but we also need to negotiate with other independent coastal states, including Norway and Iceland, in the interests of all who fish in our seas.
Improving Air Quality
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Joint Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Audit, Health and Social Care and Transport Committees, Improving Air Quality, HC 433, and calls on the Government to adopt its recommendations as part of its Clean Air Strategy.
I very much back speakers on the previous motion in their points about contempt of Parliament when people refuse to give evidence to Select Committees.
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Liaison Committee and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time in this House to debate our report on improving air quality. I thank my fellow Chairs and members of the Health, Transport and Environmental Audit Committees for all their work and help; I also thank the many staff across all the Committees for helping put together the four-Committee report, which is a challenging task.
Last October, we launched a joint inquiry to consider the Government’s most recent plans for reducing levels of nitrogen dioxide. The cross-cutting inquiry examined whether the Government’s plans to cut air quality pollution were adequate. We have concluded that they are not. The UK has failed to meet our legal air quality limits since 2010, and successive Governments have failed to get a grip and improve our air quality. Air pollution is a silent killer. It is the largest environmental risk to public health, costing the UK an estimated £20 billion every year in health impacts. Air pollution affects everyone, from those driving their cars to those who walk or cycle to work—especially in the many hotspots in our inner cities.
I am not saying that the Government have failed to take any action. It is good to see that they have taken on board key recommendations in our joint report, including: consolidating the patchwork of air quality legislation; developing a personal air pollution alert system for the public; making better use of air quality data from local authorities; and making sure that those data are compatible with each other. I also very much welcome the commitments in the latest clean air strategy consultation to cut levels of particulate pollution.
Although those initial steps are welcome, they are not nearly enough. Real change requires bold, meaningful actions, which are absent from the Government’s current approach. In our report, we called for a properly resourced national support scheme to help councils struggling with air pollution. Such a scheme would require far greater cross-departmental working and joint planning—something that, as we highlighted, is severely lacking right now. In addition, we recommended a “polluter pays” clean air fund.
This is not a war on motorists. We envisioned that the fund would be paid for by the automobile industry. I do not want to punish those who bought diesel vehicles that had been recommended by previous Governments; they bought in good faith and will need time and support to rectify the mistakes and recommendations of those previous Governments. I urge the Government to re-examine their decision not to have a targeted diesel scrappage scheme.
Furthermore, we need significant efforts to speed up the roll-out of electric charging infrastructure, which must include more rapid charging points to accelerate the transition to low-emission vehicles across all our towns and cities. It is essential that people should be able not only to charge up their cars, but to do so quickly, otherwise we will not get enough people into electric cars. All that requires a new clean air Act to update and streamline existing legislation. The new legislation could also include measures to ensure that the Government are held to account on environmental issues once we have left the EU. A new clean air Act is absolutely essential, and I ask the Minister today to confirm the timescale for the introduction of such an Act.
I find it disappointing that the Government are not making the automobile industry pay for the damage it has caused. We have already been let down in this regard: when we did not get anywhere near enough compensation out of Volkswagen for the emissions scandal. I am amazed that the German Government were able to get €1 billion, while all we seem to have got are the zeros. The automobile industry has a yearly turnover of some £80 billion.
In recent tests, the majority of the latest 2017 diesel cars are almost four times above the EU’s baseline emissions limit.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I come back to my hon. Friend’s point about Volkswagen and Germany. Would it not be ironic and extremely unfortunate if the German car industry used that €1 billion to leapfrog into clean new-energy vehicles that put them at a competitive advantage, given that there has been no similar payment that could help the UK motor industry?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. I am amazed: do British lawyers lack teeth? Do Government lawyers lack any sort of drive and ambition? It is not just Volkswagen; others out there could also contribute. If we got funds from them, those could help towards producing cleaner vehicles or helping with air quality in our inner cities and hotspots across the country. It seems so ridiculous to lose that form of money and funding.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that the US Department of Justice and the state of California have brought a case against Volkswagen, which has had to pay out more than $4 billion in the United States, with six people having been indicted, yet the UK Government are being brought to the European Court of Justice for our complete inertia in tackling this criminality?
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady, a fellow Select Committee Chair, raises a very good point. What I cannot understand is that although the money is not exactly free, it is money we could get from a source separate from British taxpayers, or wherever, to help to clean up a situation created by these vehicles. I urge the Minister today to come forward with ideas about how we can get some money from the car industry, especially Volkswagen; as the hon. Lady says, the Americans seem to be somewhat more effective at that job than we are.
The “polluter pays” fund would mean that the Government could have more money available to improve public transport and speed up the roll-out of infrastructure needed for low-emission vehicles. The emissions scandal showed us that all the manufacturers were prepared to put profit above everything else, including our health, but the Government are shying away from making them pay.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such a fund could also be used to build infrastructure for those who walk or cycle—for active transport?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend, who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee, makes a good point. Once we have the money, there are limitless things we can do with it. The unfortunate fact is that we do not have the money at the moment. I think the Government have felt that. Walking, cycling and altering the way we go about our daily lives is all good. It is good for our health, and it gets us out of our cars.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that money would be well spent because, if we succeed in getting more people on to their bicycles or walking, it will deliver long-term savings both to physical healthcare and mental healthcare and create better communities?
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady, who chairs the Transport Committee, is absolutely right that the money would be well spent. Our health would be improved, and therefore we would save money on the NHS and we would be able to spend the money in other ways.
Why are there private individuals in this country who are prepared to bring a case against VW, yet we, as a Government, have singly failed? I would be interested if the Minister could give us some insight into why we allow private people, quite rightly, to bring a case, yet the Government are not supporting them and are not bringing a case themselves.
There is not a satisfactory system for overseeing how money is spent to improve our air quality. Our report finds that Departments are clearly failing to work together. The Government have promised some modest improvements, and I am sure the House looks forward to an update on that in the very near future, perhaps even today.
The Government response tells us that a consistent approach was taken to appraising the cost of air pollution, yet during our joint Committee hearings I was deeply concerned to learn that the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), was not even aware of how much economic impact air pollution has on the UK.
It is clear that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care and local authorities not only need to collaborate more effectively but need to collaborate, full stop.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does that not bring us to probably the single most important point we will touch on this afternoon, which is the need for health and wellbeing to be included in all policies and the need for us to get out of all the different silos?
Neil Parish
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Not only on air quality but in food policy and agriculture policy, health needs to be considered; it needs to be considered in all these things. This can be a beacon for the way forward, but we need much more co-operation between all parts of Government and local government. We would all agree that we have to be careful that the Government do not blame local government and that local government does not blame the Government.
The Government have told us that the Green Book guidance sets out what Departments should be doing and how they should be working together, but that has clearly not worked in the past, and we have received nothing to give us confidence that it will necessarily improve. Perhaps the Minister will be able to put me right.
The clean air strategy failed to include measures to improve road transport emissions. Emissions are being dealt with in a separate strategy, which demonstrates that the Government still operate in silos. I had hoped the Government would take more substantive measures to improve cross-departmental working.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points about the public purse and joined-up thinking between Departments. He says that road emissions are not included in the clean air strategy. Does he have any comment on aviation? Does he agree with some of us on this side that it seems lamentable that, when 9,000 Londoners a year are dying from toxic air, we have just taken a decision to approve the expansion of Heathrow airport? Willie Walsh, from the parent company of British Airways, said the decision is outrageous—he actually called it BS, but I will not repeat that word here because it is unparliamentary. He said that the cost does not stack up.
Neil Parish
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but I will not venture into the airport air pollution problem. A lot of the air quality, certainly on the ground, has a lot to do with the extra traffic going in and out of the terminals. That also has to be dealt with. There is a lot to be done, but I do not want to get into a huge debate about the runway at Heathrow.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Neil Parish
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I consider to be my hon. Friend.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I commend the hon. Gentleman for being wise in not going down the route of debating Heathrow again. More Opposition Members supported the Heathrow national policy statement on Monday than opposed it.
Neil Parish
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. I will not venture further.
It is disappointing that these matters have not been addressed properly, but I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is also disappointing that the Government are not doing enough to support local authorities that are struggling with air quality. Local authorities face real funding restrictions. Although we said that councils need to
“take ownership of delivering local solutions to local problems”
there is the question of whether it is possible to reduce air pollution significantly across the country without our national Government looking at the big picture. The existing mechanisms are not delivering the results we need.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the amount of information and best practice sharing available to local authorities, but the change that is so necessary for struggling local authorities will not be achieved without substantial funding increases. That funding needs to be ring-fenced.
The High Court ruled against the 2017 NO2 plan because it was too narrow. Since then, DEFRA has instructed an additional 33 local authorities to address NO2 breaches. So far, only £1.65 million has been allocated to support those local authorities. I am sure the House will agree that that is clearly woefully inadequate, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You changed very quickly.
We would like to see a properly resourced national support scheme for local authorities. The Government have said they might consider the additional funding requirements. I urge the Minister to make a clear statement of intent.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to raise these issues, and I hope the House will give the Minister the oomph he needs to go away and ensure that the respective Departments heed our Committees’ joint work. The Government must grab the bull by the horns, make firm in their clean air strategy proposal and introduce a clean air Act.
David Rutley
There is more that we need to do, but the £1.2 billion funding in the cycling and walking investment strategy is a first important step, and we need to build on that—no question.
A number of important issues have been raised throughout the debate, and I will address some of them in the time remaining. One issue that has been highlighted is that of what we can do to help raise people’s awareness of the health challenges around air quality. There were important contributions on this topic from my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for South West Bedfordshire, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and the hon. Members for Wakefield, for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Through the clean air strategy, we are committed to a national information campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of air pollution. We will introduce a personal messaging system to ensure that those who are most at risk receive the information that they need about pollution risks. Public Health England is currently reviewing evidence of the effectiveness of different interventions, and will report its findings to Ministers later this year. This will include advice on the factors affecting behaviour change around air quality.
The Committees have called for a new clean air Act. As announced in our clean air strategy, we will set out new primary legislation to secure a more coherent legislative framework for action to tackle air pollution.
Neil Parish
The Minister talks about new legislation. Is that going to be a clean air Act? It is not quite clear.
David Rutley
I was just trying to explain what this new primary legislation would include. Perhaps I could progress so that my hon. Friend can see what this will lead to.
The new legislation will be underpinned by new England-wide powers to control major sources of pollution, plus new local powers to take action in areas with air pollution problems. For example, in our clean air strategy consultation we are seeking views on giving local authorities new powers to control emissions from domestic combustion, biomass and non-road mobile machinery.
David Rutley
A number of Members have mentioned the importance of tackling particulate matter. We need to look at all avenues, including wood-burning stoves. The Government have introduced programmes that help people to become more aware of the right wood to burn—that is, wood with a lower moisture content. We need to take this sort of approach to raise people’s awareness, so that they can see what needs to be done to help reduce particulate matter.
I am conscious of the time available. Perhaps I could highlight some of the local issues that have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made some important points about anti-idling campaigns, and I recognise the good work that has been done in that area by Westminster City Council. There has been a lot of talk about electric bikes and what we must do to make people more aware of where they can and cannot use those cycles. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was absolutely right to say that we need to look not only at emissions, but at tyres and brakes, because of the resulting particulate matter.
David Rutley
For the last time, because I am conscious that I need to wind up very shortly.
Neil Parish
As we are talking about particulates and pollution from nitric oxide, what about the Volkswagen scandal? Why have we not got any money out of that company?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend knows, through his service on his Committee, that this is quite a complex issue. There are complex legal and jurisdictional matters that need to be addressed, particularly when it comes to the response to VW’s wrongdoing.
David Rutley
I hear “oomph” from a sedentary position; I will not respond to that again. The vast majority of the potential wrongdoing in the case my hon. Friend mentions occurred in Germany, and the German Government have held VW to account there. There are different regulations in the United States, meaning that it is easier for the US authorities to secure funding from there. We want to ensure that the automotive industry makes more of a contribution.
We need to work in partnership to tackle the problem that we have discussed today, and we are absolutely committed to doing that. We want to work across all levels of government, as has been highlighted today, and with local authorities, businesses, farmers, industry and households to tackle air pollution. I know that there is real enthusiasm across the House, and we need to use that momentum to good effect. I would like to conclude by recognising the important contribution made by the joint inquiry’s report and pay tribute to the quality of the speeches we have heard today. The House can be assured that the Government will continue to engage with the Select Committees on this vital issue in the months ahead.
Neil Parish
I would like to thank all Members for their contributions this afternoon. This House is at its best when we work across the parties and across Committees, as we have done to deliver this verdict on air quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said, the Government want to leave this country and this planet in a better environmental condition than we found them in, and air quality is essential in delivering that. If we are going to deliver a better quality of life for poor and rich alike, we have to make sure that we tackle air quality.
We have had contributions from Members representing urban areas where there is a concentration of pollution, and we must deal with those hotspots. We have also had contributions from Members representing rural areas where roads and other things are causing real problems in towns. We have to make sure that our planning system for not only roads but housing takes account of the need to increase air quality and get rid of pollution.
Working together, we can deliver this. We want to see this Government and others go forward. The Secretary of State is very keen to deliver a much cleaner environment. We must now concentrate on air quality, and not only on transport, bikes and walking but all the ways in which we can put this right. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I think we will make a difference, and we must.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Joint Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Audit, Health and Social Care and Transport Committees, Improving Air Quality, HC 433, and calls on the Government to adopt its recommendations as part of its Clean Air Strategy.
Leaving the EU: Upland Farming
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
George Eustice
I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend that I have already looked at that scheme; I visited it two years ago. The Dartmoor Farming Futures project can show us the way, and it is something that we can learn from. It has been developed as a pilot, as a bit of a derogation from existing EU rules. As we think about future policies, we are keen to work out how we can tailor them to an individual area and focus more on outcomes, rather than processes and inputs.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Further to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), we are making a bespoke arrangement for the future. The Dartmoor scheme has huge amounts to recommend it, but in the meantime, many of our stewardship schemes will run out before we can set up the new schemes, so is it not a good idea to run the existing systems on for a couple of years, and pick up a bespoke arrangement when we are ready? Otherwise, many of these schemes will fall, and instead of getting more environmental benefits, we might get fewer. I am very concerned about that.
George Eustice
I was going to come back to that. We will be absolutely certain that the existing countryside stewardship schemes will run on and be funded. Some of the agreements will outlive our membership of the European Union; they will continue to be funded until we have successor schemes in place.
Brexit: Trade in Food
Neil Parish Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Brexit: Trade in Food, HC 348, and the Government response, HC 1021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As you have said, let us hope we see a Minister in the very near future.
Before we begin, it is one year since the disaster of Grenfell Tower, and I want to remember those whose lives were devastated when they lost their loved ones and their homes. We should all reflect on that.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement in the Chamber last night that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will bring forward two Bills on sentencing and animal sentience, as recommended by our Committee.
The British public voted to leave the European Union in 2016 so that we could take back control of our money, laws and regulations. Farming is a prime example of that. For 40 years, all our policies have come from Brussels, but now we will be able to decide a new farming policy for ourselves. I chaired the agriculture committee of the European Parliament, and in trying to deal with 27 countries, from Finland in the north to Spain in the south, it can sometimes be difficult to come up with a policy that suits everyone. We have a bright future, provided we embrace what will be good not only for the environment, but for farming and food production in this country.
We need to know exactly what impact Brexit will have on our agricultural sector. That is why the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee held an inquiry on Brexit and food, which we published on 18 February. My Committee spoke to many people—farmers from all sectors, academics and other food and farming professionals—and they all agreed that trade is crucial to the farming industry. As a rural MP and a former dairy farmer, I know more than most how important that trade is. [Interruption.] It is good to see the Minister arriving. I will allow him to take his seat. It is all right, Minister. It is usually me who is late, not him.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I must give my apologies for missing the start of the debate. The reason is that I thought a debate of such importance should be in the main Chamber. I was hovering outside the wrong Chamber, but I am here now. I apologise for missing the first few minutes.
Neil Parish
That is a very good apology. The Minister elevated our debate to the Chamber when we are actually in Westminster Hall. I appreciate his explanation and thank him for arriving. I am sure his officials will fill him in on the start of my speech.
We have a great farming industry and high-quality products, and it is important that that is supported over the coming years. Continued trade with the EU is essential to ensuring our farming sector thrives after Brexit. We must have an outward-looking, global Britain. That will be key to seeing our agricultural sector flourish, but we must also maintain a good share of our home market and home production. I feel strongly about that. We buy 70% of our food and drink imports from the EU, and we sell 60% of our food and drink exports back to the EU. We can see that trade to the EU is extremely important, and that that means that a farming-focused free trade agreement with the EU is essential. We have always sought reassurance from Ministers that as the deals are done, DEFRA, DEFRA Ministers and the Secretary of State will be at the forefront.
If we do not reach a free trade agreement with the EU, our agricultural goods might well be subject to tariffs once we have left. EU tariffs are high. Tariffs on dairy products are over 30%, and they can be as high as 80% on frozen beef. Reverting to World Trade Organisation rules would be even worse, as tariffs there are far higher for agricultural goods than for many other products. In addition, all countries must be treated equally under WTO rules. For example, Irish beef would need to have the same tariff as Brazilian beef, which could be devastating not only for us, but for Ireland. That is why our report recommends that the Government undertake work as a matter of urgency to evaluate the impact of any deal that they negotiate.
We are calling on the Government to publish a sector-by-sector analysis on the impact of Brexit so that we can better understand how tariffs will affect our farmers. For instance, in the dairy sector we import a similar amount to what we export. We are often importing yoghurts and cheeses, and we have the ability to produce more of those ourselves. We could therefore reduce the need for imports, as we could in other sectors, such as the pig and lamb sectors.
We export some 40% of our lamb, and import some 35%. On the face of it, we could say, “That’s okay. Stop the exports and the imports and we can eat all our own lamb,” but in reality we are exporting fifth-quarter joints and importing legs of lamb from New Zealand. We can see that the trade in lamb backwards and forwards, and with France in particular, is incredibly important.
The Secretary of State assured us on the sector-by-sector analysis yesterday in Committee, and I seek your assurance, Minister, that that work is under way and will be published. In my view, it should have been done already. We have seen, rightly in many respects, many more extra staff being taken on in DEFRA, but I have to say bluntly to you, Minister—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. It is not me that the hon. Gentleman is addressing, but the Minister. You are speaking to “him”.
Neil Parish
I beg your pardon, Mr Gray. I say to the Minister, what is happening with the sector-by-sector analysis? When can we expect the analyses to be published? In all the evidence we took for our report, we found that the trading arrangements affect different sectors in very different ways. We need to know exactly what those trading arrangements will be to ensure that we maintain our food production.
A farming-focused free trade agreement is not the only way that the Government can support farmers. I am sure that you, Minister—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I do not mean to be stiff and pompous, but the reason for the convention is that referring to all other Members in the Chamber in the third person removes the directness from the debate. It is not “you”, but “he” or “the Minister”.
James Gray (in the Chair)
It is perfectly reasonable to say, “As the Minister will know,” or, “As I hope the Minister will say in replying to the debate.” It is not in order to say, “As you know, Minister,” or, “As I hope you will say in your reply.” You may not use the word “you” apart from when you are referring to me, and I have no part in the debate beyond chairing it.
Neil Parish
Thank you, Mr Gray, for that clarification.
Farmers offer vital support to the rural economy, with the food and farming industry generating more than £110 billion a year, and employing one person in eight in the country. Food and drink, much of it produced in this country, is a vital industry, and the way our food is produced is so important for our natural environment, as we can see in many parts of the country.
The Secretary of State was in Exmoor and Devon last week, where the farming of sheep and cattle produces that lovely landscape with many natural features. Within those natural features is a managed farm landscape, which is why the profitability of food and agricultural production is so necessary. We can look at environmental payments, but they will not be able to replace the profitability of agriculture and food production entirely. The two need to go hand in glove, which we are really keen to see happen.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As a member of the EFRA Committee, I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate; I am on the Ivory Bill Committee, which sits again at 2 pm.
I entirely support what the Chair of the Select Committee says about the need for much greater clarity and strategic direction from the Department, but it is also important that we hear a lot more from the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union. I asked about rules of origin and their impact on the food sector this morning and got a very disappointing response. Does he agree that all three Departments need to send a clear message to farmers and food producers about what the future holds for them?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the excellent work that she does on the Select Committee. She makes a very good point about geographical indicators. Interestingly enough, when the Secretary of State visited Exmoor and Devon last week, there was talk of giving protected geographical indication status to Exmoor, where we can sell lamb from both sides of the border—from Somerset and from Devon.
All those things are intricately linked to the need for a future food policy, so that people know where their food has come from and so that we can market it better and, hopefully, get a better price for the producer. That money can then be linked back to the landscape. I cannot emphasise enough that the landscape and the food production, especially in certain parts of the country such as big livestock areas and more marginal land, are intricately mixed.
We must also ensure that we have high-quality vegetable production. Where we can produce organic vegetables, we should; where we can produce vegetables with fewer pesticides and fungicides, we should. We must be very positive about a food policy. I am worried that in the recent Command Paper on health and harmony, the only real talk of food production was very much at the high end. The high end of food production is great—from local restaurants, to tourists buying food and to everything linked to the countryside. However, we also need affordable food that the whole population can eat.
At least 90% of our food business goes through our major retailers, and people often buy on price. As we move forward, we have to be assured that our vegetable production not only is of good quality, with high welfare standards, but comes at a price that the average consumer can afford to—and will—pay. Whatever we buy in life, it is a choice, so not only do we want to have good, high standards, but it needs to be affordable.
We have a managed landscape with many natural features, as I said. The onus is on the Government to engage more closely with the industry to provide the food and farming sector with greater clarity. Tit-for-tat tariffs will do more harm than good—just look at the situation in America. The Americans have started putting tariffs on steel and aluminium. That might well help the steel and aluminium industries in America, but it will drive costs up for the industries in America that need to use those products. Food, a commodity and a manufactured product, does not need tariffs on it. In the end, that will only create more costs and could well lead to higher prices to consumers. I do not believe that those tariffs will ever come back to the producer.
It is imperative that we have a farming-focused free trade agreement with Europe. I repeat what has been said day in and day out in this House: two years since the referendum, all sectors—not just the farming sector— need some clarity on the direction in which we are going. People in all lines of business need to make investments, but those in the beef and dairy sectors in particular need to have a long-term view of where the world is going in order to make investments.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
On that point, it is worth mentioning Northern Ireland, which the Select Committee considered. There is a particular need for as much certainty as we can give regarding Northern Ireland, because I think 45% of all sheep produced there go south of the border. We made a specific recommendation on Northern Ireland, as any change in trade arrangements could be more disruptive there than anywhere else in the kingdom.
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is also a very good member of the Committee. He raises a good point regarding the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The lambs go south and the pigs go north to be processed—and the milk goes round and round in circles, as far as I am aware. A lot of processing goes on across the border. If anywhere in the whole of the United Kingdom is essential, it is that border, for obvious political reasons—reasons of peace and many others. We must get that border right. I am sure it is not lost on the Minister that we need to do more regarding that border.
The various systems we are putting in place are interesting. I am quite happy for the Government to look at having a new system. It does not have to be the single market and the customs union, but we have to ensure that the new system we devise is recognised by the EU, because the Republic of Ireland, obviously, is an EU member state. Those are the great challenges, and I am sure that that is not lost on the Government.
If tariffs were imposed, I believe that consumers would suffer. Tariffs would also make it more difficult for our farmers who produce food to our world-renowned high standards to compete and properly export, inhibiting the building of “Brand Britain”, which is going to be even more important in the future than it has in the past. We will be able strongly to market not only regional produce, but the British product. We have only to go back to horsegate, when horsemeat was being put into burgers because it was a lot cheaper, and look at the food cycle, the provenance of food and the food processing industry, to find that food travels all across Europe. Provenance, branding and the confidence that the world—and those in our own country—has in our products are going to be more important than ever.
As I said, the Government have struggled with their post-Brexit policies. I am hoping that we are seeing some clarity; we have had some interesting votes this week. I believe that will bring forward a clarity, so that we can move forward; the industry needs to have confidence to invest and to address the opportunities and challenges that Brexit will offer. We must go into this with our eyes open.
That is not all. We have dealt with the cross-border situation in Northern Ireland; investing in an IT system to support a more efficient export certification process could minimise delays, and we need to make sure, whether through the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, the Food Standards Agency or our veterinary services, that we have the necessary personnel to be able to get the licences up and running quickly, especially if we are going to have a change in the system as we cross the border. It is very important that we move quickly where we are talking about perishable products, which include not only agricultural products but fish.
It is possible to design a bespoke support system that encourages greater productivity and further strengthens our animal welfare standards, which are already among the highest in world. To do that, we need clarification from our Government. It is good to have very high welfare and environmental standards, but the quid pro quo is that the standards of imported products should maintain our high standards, through the free trade arrangement with Europe—which should not be difficult because our standards are currently the same—and free trade arrangements with other countries across the world. Otherwise we will put our producers and farmers out of business.
Our food and drink sector needs a reinforced trade deal. “Brand Britain” must become a national advertisement to the world, showing what an outward-looking, open nation we are. The new farming policy we call for in the Select Committee report is about creating a “Brand Britain” that delivers high-quality food that is affordable for all. British agriculture should be front and centre of all our negotiations, not left to feed from the crumbs under the table.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am very pleased that, yet again, we are in this place debating food and farming. I am even more pleased that the Minister is here, because otherwise I would not have been able to ask him the questions I want to ask him. I am sure he will try to answer them.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), raised a number of issues that I wish to take up. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who has had to leave, and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan). They are very strong members of the Select Committee, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), who has not had a chance to say anything yet, but if he wishes to intervene and put something on the record, I am more than happy to let him do so.
I am a former member of the Select Committee, and I am grateful that it is in good hands. I was lucky to be chaired by David Curry and Michael Jack, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has carried on in the same good order. He has shown how the Committee is making a difference. The quality of its work is in the preciseness of its arguments. Why write a long report when a short one can do the job?
The hon. Gentleman’s speech ranged far and wide, so I make no apology that I will refer to the later report, which may also be discussed in this place in due course. It is, however, contingent on the report before us. I will refer to a number of things in the Government’s Command Paper, and how the Select Committee has investigated them.
Let me start with where we are with this whole exercise. Although farming is a relatively small part of the British jigsaw, it is a very important part of European functionality, because half the EU budget is spent on farming. My first question to the Minister—I have asked this previously—is, when will we get into serious negotiations about farming, and particularly food? Although farming is not a huge constituent part of the British economy, food and food exports are. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, that sector is responsible for about £110 billion-worth of business, and employs one in eight people. It is an important part of the UK economy, so we have got to get this right whatever the post-Brexit situation is.
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s request to see the sectorial reports. Like lots of hon. Members, I went to look at the original sectorial reports. I have to say that a good A-level student would probably feel reasonably pleased with them, but I do not think their quality was much better than that. We need definitive evidence, because these sectors are very different and will require different negotiations. It would be good to know when some of those negotiations will take place, and that there will be ministerial—not just civil service—input, because they will be complicated.
I am not sure—I know the Minister is sure and can allay my fears—when we will start talking to the WTO. We are a signatory to the WTO, but through our membership of the EU. At what stage will we start to talk to the WTO about how we will exercise our independence? The one thing that I know from all my time on the Select Committee, and since, is that when we start to get into the different boxes—amber, red, blue and green—and the aggregate measure of support, we get into enormous complexity, which will not be sorted out in a few weeks. That will take a long time.
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and certainly for his comments about the Select Committee. When it comes to tariffs and the European relationship with agriculture, the problem with the WTO is that if we were under WTO rules rather than in a free trade arrangement with Europe, French and Irish beef would have to have the same tariff as Brazilian beef. Imagine having to compete with Brazilian and Argentinian beef—we produce very high-quality beef in this country, but it would be difficult to produce it at the same prices as Brazil and Argentina.
Dr Drew
Again, I am not an expert on the farming industry per se, as the hon. Gentleman is, but having talked to those who know about it, I know that the lamb market—Welsh lamb, in particular—is very vulnerable. I made the point that New Zealand would no doubt be keen to expand its exports to this country, but I was proven wrong in the sense that New Zealand can already export 200,000 tonnes of lamb. The big threat is actually from Australia, which has a more limited quota arrangement and will no doubt wish to have a free trade agreement—any agreement—so that it can export more to us. Again, that is a question I ask. I genuinely do not know where outside the EU—where 60% of our food exports go to—we can form all these free trade agreements.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I apologise again for being late to the debate, for the reasons I described earlier.
I thank the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for introducing the debate. This is an incredibly important issue that matters to all sectors of the economy and to food and farming. I want to set out, for the record, the Government’s approach to our future trading relationship with the European Union, because that is important. Much of the report looked at the consequences of a possible no-deal Brexit, for reasons I can understand and that I will deal with, but it is important to recognise the UK’s position.
We are seeking a bold and comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. We want tariff-free access for all sectors, which would be reciprocated, and we seek a frictionless border. We believe that the growth of technology in the last 20 to 30 years means that we do not have to have as much friction at the border as some would claim. Indeed, we have looked the procedures used prior to 1993, when the single market was introduced—an important point that many people forget. We had frictionless borders not when we joined the European Union, but after 1993. Technology has assisted a lot with the frictionless borders that we enjoy today in the European Union—that is not just about the regulations of the single market.
Neil Parish
I agree with the Minister entirely; it would be great if we could get the frictionless trade deal and frictionless borders. Is he convinced that when we have the technology—I think we have it—it will work? I must be quite blunt about the Rural Payments Agency, Natural England and others. I know he will defend them to the hilt, but I said yesterday that they are not fit for purpose. If they were in the private sector, they probably would be dead by now, because they do not handle things properly—every time, we get more and more problems. The key thing is whether we can get this to work and whether we can get Europe to agree to it. Ultimately, let us get those lorries across the border and back again. We all want that. That is the reassurance we are all looking for.
George Eustice
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was going to come on to why it is in everyone’s interest to do the type of agreement that we are offering. We do not believe that we have to have total uniformity of regulations on these various issues to have a frictionless border. It is quite possible to recognise what in trade jargon is called equivalence.
Our offer to the European Union is that bold and comprehensive free trade agreement, tariff-free trade and frictionless borders, where the European Union and the UK can both adopt a risk-based approach to any border checks they might put in place, assisted by technology. We want to give each other confidence by agreeing a set of arrangements through which we will recognise the equivalency of our various regulations. That can be done. Our starting point is not as a third country trying to establish a trade deal with the European Union, but as a member state that is stepping back from being a European Union member. On day one, we start with absolute uniformity of our regulations. That is unique in the world, which is why it is absolutely possible to do the type of agreement on borders that we seek.
The other point to recognise is that the European Union has a trade surplus with the UK in food and drink alone of £18 billion each year. It may feign indifference to its trade with the UK for the purpose of the negotiations that are going on, but that matters. Access to the UK market matters to Irish beef farmers, poultry producers in the Netherlands, pork producers in Denmark, horticultural producers in the Netherlands and cheese producers in France. They need access to the UK market. Therefore, it is in their interest to take up what we are offering, which is a comprehensive free trade agreement with frictionless borders.
George Eustice
I noted the hon. Gentleman’s points from his speech and will come back to them.
First, I want to address one of the questions posed by the report: what happens in a no-deal scenario? The reality is that there are quite a number of options open to an independent country in control of its own trade policy. It does not have to be most favoured nation rules, and that is the end of the story. One option for an independent country when setting its own trade policy would be to have unilateral tariff rate suspensions—it would keep the bound tariffs where they were, but it could suspend them on certain product lines if it wanted to. It also could have what is called an applied tariff for some product lines that was lower than the bound tariff set in the WTO schedule.
An independent country could also establish unilaterally something called autonomous tariff rate quotas—ATQs. They enable the country to create a quota in certain product lines to allow that tariff-free trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out that one of the issues is that those have to be what is described in trade jargon as erga omnes—open to all—around the world and not just to the European Union, but we could, of course, abide by our own sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. In a short period where such measures might prevail, our existing trading partners would find it easier to satisfy those and potential new ones. There are many tools in the box that we would have as an independent country controlling our own trade policy.
My hon. Friend also asked about a sector-by-sector analysis. He will be aware that in December last year, the Department for Exiting the European Union published analyses for each sector. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) read that and was very complimentary about the detail in it. There was a specific report in there on the food and drink sector—my hon. Friend will be aware that, in addition to that, the Government have done a great deal of more detailed ongoing analysis and modelling—but for reasons that we have been clear about, and that I think Parliament understands, there are certain things in a negotiation that we should not put out there. Not everything that we have done has been published, but we have published that report sector by sector.
Neil Parish
I thank the Minister for giving way again. This is important and we have plenty of time, hence I will take up a bit more. When you say “sector by sector”, are you talking about the food and drink—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I am not talking about anything—the Minister is.
Neil Parish
When the Minister says “sector by sector”, is he referring to the food and drink sector? Our report naturally referred to the individual sectors of agriculture—dairy, sheep, beef and so on. This issue is linked not only to trade, but to the support policies that will be needed. An extensive beef and sheep farmer perhaps needs the basic farm payment much more than a dairy farmer due to the overall income from that business. That is what we are particularly interested in.
George Eustice
Yes, I understand, and I was going to come on to that. Although, of course, we have done other, more detailed work, not all of which has been published, I think I pointed out in evidence to the Committee that in March 2016 the National Farmers Union commissioned a detailed piece of work by a Dutch university, which looked at precisely that issue—what would happen under a most favoured nation trading scenario for a range of sectors. I probably cannot go much further, except to say that I recommend that research to anyone with an interest in this area because its analysis was broadly correct. In summary, it showed that some sectors are indeed more exposed than others to our trade with the European Union.
Notably, as the shadow Minister pointed out, the sheep sector is quite dependent on our trade with the European Union. The analysis commissioned by the NFU bore that out. It also identified that there might be some impact on barley producers that export for the lager industry in Europe in a most favoured nation scenario. However, broadly speaking, for most producers in every other sector there would actually be a slight firming in farm-gate prices, because most sectors would have less import competition. It is hard to predict exactly what would happen in a no-deal scenario, but in a scenario in which it was slightly harder to export lamb to Europe and harder to import beef from Ireland, some mixed beef and sheep enterprises likely would diversify a little more into beef to substitute for Irish imports and put a little less into sheep, particularly if they were exposed to the export market in countries such as France, Greece and Belgium.
There would obviously be changes under such a scenario, but it is worth reflecting on debates in the House in the late 1950s on whether we should join the European Union or remain a member of the European Free Trade Association. I am afraid that, given the nature of the debates we are having now, I revisited some of those debates to understand how we got into this pickle in the first place. It is telling that in the late 1950s and early 1960s there was cross-party agreement that joining the European Union would be bad for agriculture. One reason we did not join early was that it was recognised that that would be negative for agriculture. It is interesting that the NFU analysis largely bears that out to this day.
Neil Parish
Just to be facetious, Minister, does that mean you are going to re-establish deficiency payments? Do not forget that deficiency payments were coupled with that.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Two points. First, interventions must be quite short. Secondly, I am sorry to pull the hon. Gentleman up again, but it is an absolute rule in this place that hon. Members must refer to one another as “the hon. Member”, “him”, “the Minister”, “she” and so on. Hon. Members may not refer to the Minister as “you”, because whenever you use the word “you”, you are referring to me. Please make an absolute habit of using only the third person.
George Eustice
There are anecdotal reports that more have come back this year because of recent changes in the exchange rate. Some daffodil producers in the west country say that it was easier to get labour this winter than last. It is quite common for seasonal agricultural workers to return for a number of years, and indeed levels of returning are one of the yardsticks used to assess the availability of labour.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) posed a question in an intervention about rules of origin. The Government are looking at that area. Obviously, not every nation state in the world is a member of the European Union. Lots of countries are not, and they have quite established procedures on rules of origin. While we have not reached a final position on those issues, there is, for instance, the pan-Euro-Mediterranean regional convention, which is a rules of origin system covering countries both in and not in the European Union. Other parts of the world have therefore addressed such issues.
I turn to points raised by the shadow Minister, who asked about how we are approaching the WTO. We have been clear that our schedule of tariff rate quotas on agricultural products should be divided between the EU and the UK based on an historical reference period. We regard that as a matter of technical rectification rather than reopening everything for renegotiation, and that is the approach we are taking on existing TRQs.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned New Zealand lamb and pointed out that we have a TRQ of just short of 250,000 tonnes for lamb from New Zealand coming into the UK. It is also important to recognise that, in recent years, New Zealand has only ever used about 70% of its quota. That demonstrates that long before the ceiling of that tariff rate quota is hit, they find themselves unable to compete with UK producers. I am more optimistic than some about British sheep producers’ ability to compete with New Zealand and Australia. Many do so already. As a country, we should not get spooked by some kind of New Zealand haka on lamb production. We need to get on the pitch and play, and I think we will find that we can beat them.
We have been clear that in any future trade agreements we will maintain our standards. We will not reduce our standards in pursuit of a trade deal. That is a common feature. It is quite possible for us, through doing trade deals with third countries, to require that those who wish to supply us under such agreements must meet our standards.
Just this morning, I visited the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and talked to officials who were involved in our negotiations with the United States on reopening its market for British beef, which we have worked on for a number of years. There are opportunities for British beef exports to the United States, but there are also one or two technical areas where the United States wants us to change our rules for those supplying them to meet their standards. For instance, they have a slightly different approach to monitoring things such as E. coli and to the methodology that a vet should use when visually inspecting animals as they arrive in the pen.
We could go in and say, “This is no good. You’ve got to change your rules to be like the British rules,” but we do not. Actually, we say, “Fair enough. Those suppliers who want to supply that market should do that. We should respect their rules, and they should respect ours.” Equally, if US producers want to supply the British market, it is absolutely open to us to say that that must be done on British standards. We are a free-trading country, and we will be open to doing trade deals, but we are clear that we have standards and values that we will not abandon.
Neil Parish
We have very high standards in this country. We also use less and less antibiotics in producing meat. The Americans still use a lot more antibiotics, their environmental standards are lower and often their welfare standards are lower. On the antibiotic side in particular, we must be clear in negotiations that we do not reduce our standards and allow in products that have had many more antibiotics.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In a trade negotiation we are talking about food standards, not just food safety. Some people misleadingly try to divert the debate, but it is about food standards, and issues such as animal welfare and the approach taken to farm husbandry are integral to those standards. We should not be shy about saying so.
A number of hon. Members mentioned IT systems. We—in the European Union—currently use the trade control and expert system, but we are doing a detailed piece of work to build a replacement system, should that be needed, and that work is well advanced. My hon. Friend asks in his Committee’s report for the Government to set out clarity about the future of the agriculture Bill. I am aware that this week the Secretary of State appeared before my hon. Friend’s Committee, where he was given that reassurance. The report also raised the potential impacts of tariffs on food prices. Again, as with the sectoral impacts, the Government are looking at this area, but we are not in a position to publish details. However, I recommend those hon. Members interested to look at work done by, for instance, the Resolution Foundation, which identified the fact that the impact on domestic food prices would be quite marginal, even under a most favoured nation scenario.
We have had a comprehensive debate covering a wide range of issues. I welcome the Committee’s interest and it bringing its report to the House for debate.
James Gray (in the Chair)
The question is, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Brexit: Trade in Food, HC 348, and the Government response—
James Gray (in the Chair)
I beg your pardon. Mr Parish can indeed conclude if he wishes. That is quite right.
Neil Parish
Thank you, Mr Gray; I wanted to ensure that we kept to correct parliamentary procedure, having been corrected a number of times this afternoon. I will do my best not to refer to hon. Members as “you” in future.
I thank the Minister for his summing-up speech. He mentioned the good work done by the NFU through a Dutch university on sector-by-sector analysis, which I welcome, but I do not think that takes the place of a proper sector-by-sector analysis by DEFRA, which still needs to be done. I make that point very strongly.
I also thank the Minister because I know the work he does to understand the trade deals and to get a good deal in the future for this country; he cares very much about that, which I respect. In particular, the deal we do on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will be important not only for Northern Ireland and our own country, but for the Republic of Ireland. I had an Irish grandmother from Dublin, which may account for many things. I find it fascinating that, after nearly 100 years of independence from the United Kingdom and of being its own country, the majority of the Republic’s trade is still with the United Kingdom. Not only is it important for us that we get it right, but it is important for the Republic of Ireland. I hope the EU, on the other side of the argument, also understands how important that is.
I like the Minister’s idea of a bespoke, risk-based arrangement. The idea that we will be able to open up and inspect every lorry will never actually happen, but we need to have a system where we are able to do that if we need to. What matters is the speed at which we can get through those borders, and keeping the trade that is so important. We have talked about trying to ensure that, as we do a future deal, there are no tariffs, because that will not be good for any sector, and especially not the farming sector, in the long run.
The shadow Minister referred to the fact that we must watch for interference with trade, not through tariffs but through other means. I remember that in my previous existence, when I was elected to the European Parliament in 1999, we were trying to get British beef back into France after bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Even under single market regulations and all the regulations that were in place, the French were masters at finding reasons why that beef should not go into their country.
Although I am very happy to trade with France and the rest of the European Union as we leave, we have to be conscious that those countries could find ways of disrupting trade. They still do it within the European Union now; they usually stop just before the Commission throws the rulebook at them. They are very clever at looking after their own trade, and we need to be equally clever to ensure that our trade goes into France and that, when we reciprocate those trade arrangements, they also honour their arrangements as we move forward.
Again, I thank the Minister, who has come to our Committee and had some very good and open exchanges. In the end, whether we voted to remain in the European Union or to go out, I believe now that a Brexit deal must be done. The people have decided, and we must make that work. Nowhere is that more important than in the farming and food sector, because it has been part of a common agricultural policy and trade policy for 40 years. We have great opportunities, but we must get this right—not only for food and farming, but for good food to be had by all in this country at affordable prices.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Brexit: Trade in Food, HC 348, and the Government response, HC1021.
Ivory Bill
Neil Parish ExcerptsMonday 4th June 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who made the point that the Bill has cross-party support. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has taken the bull by the horns—perhaps that is the wrong analogy to use in this instance—and very much taken on board the ban on ivory sales. He is driving it forward in his characteristically forceful way. I urge him to go even further, because it is the international ivory trade that matters. It is great that the Chinese are introducing a ban, but we need many Asian countries to stop buying ivory, because if there is no value in ivory, people will not risk their lives to deliver it around the world. We are setting a great example.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) who did a lot of very good work when he was Secretary of State. In his characteristic way, he was a hands-on Secretary of State and went right to the heart of Africa to see what was happening.
As we sit in the House today, we do not realise the dangers faced by the rangers. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, they risk their lives, day in, day out, to try to protect elephants. In many African states, the political and military situation is difficult, and in many places wars are going on, so there is added danger for rangers trying to protect elephants. Through everything that we do, including international aid, we need to try to make sure that we can deliver a better life for so many people in Africa so that they do not go out poaching and can find other ways to make a living. That way, the rangers will not have to risk their lives, day in, day out, to try to protect elephants.
We cannot keep losing more than 20,000 elephants a year. They will be extinct, if not in our generation, certainly in the next. We cannot allow that to happen, so this ban on the sale of ivory in this country is a good step in the right direction. I know that those in the antiques trade are worried, but the problem is that it has been so difficult to identify what is antique ivory and what is not, so a ban on the sale of virtually all kinds of ivory is the best way forward. If we can stamp out the demand, we will drive down the value, which will save many elephants throughout Africa.
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State is doing and know that he will raise this issue internationally and in all his discussions around the world. We do not want to see America rolling back its position and allowing more ivory into America, because that would increase the demand. With the market in China now drying up, we really have the chance to save many more elephants in Africa.
When the ban on the sale of ivory is introduced, will the Secretary of State make sure that it is vigorously enforced? It is no good introducing legislation unless we can enforce it vigorously. Can we also make sure that the penalties for those who wilfully ignore the ban are proper deterrents? Again, it is no good introducing legislation if there are no real teeth to make sure that people adhere to it. We want to be certain that we are not going to trade ivory in this country.
We can bring about a huge reduction in the number of elephants that are slaughtered throughout the continent of Africa. Earlier, Members questioned whether we needed to protect the Indian elephant. Indeed, there are also other species of animals with ivory that we may need to protect as we go forward. If anybody can get a measure through this House quickly, I believe that it is you, Secretary of State. With the support of the shadow Secretary of State and of Parliament, I believe that we can do this. There are times when Parliament robustly debates matters. There are times, dare I say it, that Prime Minister’s questions resembles something of a bear garden. However, there are times such this when we can all unite. This Bill is long overdue. Many of us have been campaigning in this House for a ban. I very much welcome what you are doing, Secretary of State, and I am sure that it will have complete cross-party support tonight. I urge you to work even faster—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I just cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with this. It was alright the first time. Then I tried not to listen the second time. But then he referred to the Secretary of State as “you” for the third time. I simply would not be carrying out my duty if I did not stop him and ask him to please address the Chamber through the Chair. Just call the Secretary of State “he” or “Secretary of State”, or “the right hon. Gentleman”, or something other than “you”—please.
Neil Parish
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to offend anybody. I will just say to the Secretary of State that you will—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State will get on with the job and deliver this Bill as quickly as possible, with the help of cross-party support.