There are currently 16 wild animals licensed by Defra for use by travelling circuses in England. The 16 wild animals are 6 Reindeer; 3 Camels; 3 Zebra; 1 Fox; 1 Macaw; 1 Racoon and 1 Zebu.

Some skin and fur products may never be legally imported into the UK for commercial use. These include seal skins and products and cat and dog fur and products.

If the fur is from an endangered species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), its import and trade will be subject to CITES controls, as will any body part of that species also being imported or traded. These controls are implemented by the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. The Government has no plans to remove these controls.

Labelling of fur products for consumers is already covered by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, alongside my colleagues Fergus Ewing MSP, Lesley Griffiths AM and Michelle McIlveen MLA, on 12 and 13 December in Brussels.

EU quota negotiations, involving decisions on fishing opportunities for the next year for quota stocks in the North Sea, Atlantic, Channel, Irish and Celtic Seas, were first on the agenda, and were ongoing for the entire duration of the Council. This was the third annual Council at which fishing opportunities were set under the rules of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, which aims to have all stocks fished at sustainable levels by 2020 at the latest.

The UK secured a number of crucial changes to the Commission’s original proposals including, where science supports it, quota increases for fishermen around all parts of the UK. This is due to stocks recovering after years of the UK’s insistence on limiting catches with sustainable scientific limits. Quotas secured include:

• North Sea: Cod +16.5%, Whiting +17%, Anglerfish + 20% Saithe +53% Sole +22%
• Irish Sea: Haddock +25% and Nephrops +8.6%
• Western Channel: Haddock +7% and Sole +20%
• North Sea Hake +12% and Western Hake +9%

The quota settlement for 2017 is worth just over £705 million to the UK, around £34 million more than in 2016.

The agreement means that for 2017, 29 stocks of interest to the UK will be fished at or below their maximum sustainable yield rate (MSY), an increase on 2016, out of 45 such stocks for which MSY assessments have been made. At the EU level, 44 stocks are fished at or below MSY, as announced by Commissioner Vella at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/vella/announcements/agrifish-council_en.

Where the latest scientific evidence supported it, the UK Government argued against unnecessary quota cuts proposed by the European Commission, securing the same quota as in 2016 for many species, including Cod and Sole in the Irish Sea, Anglerfish in the Celtic Sea and Whiting in West of Scotland.

There were some challenges especially on stocks like Bass, Cod, and Megrim in the South West and Sole in the Eastern Channel, where action is necessary to cut fishing mortality in order to allow these stocks to recover. However, we worked hard to secure an agreement that strikes the right balance for both our marine environment and coastal communities.

For 2017, sea bass catch limits from vessels using fixed gill nets were set at 250kg per month for unavoidable by-catch – a reduction of around 80% from 2016 - while hook and line commercial fishermen saw their potential catch cut by around 23%. The restrictions on recreational angling will remain the same as in 2016.

Proportionate quota uplifts were agreed for demersal stocks subject to the landing obligation in 2017. As in 2016, the Government will continue to support the English inshore fleet to adapt to the landing obligation, by allocating to them the first 100 tonnes of quota uplift of a species and 10% thereafter. There will be additional quota uplift in 2017 for new species such as North Sea cod and North Western Waters Pollack.

A paper was presented on Climate Change Effort Share Regulation and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), discussed alongside the ‘any other business’ item on agroecology. Many Member States, including the United Kingdom, were broadly satisfied with the proposals outlined in the paper. The UK intervened to argue that a methodology should be found to ensure a fairer distribution of credits between Member States.

After this, the Council agreed Conclusions on tackling unfair trading practices in the farming supply chain. The UK managed to secure a wording change that lessens the chance in 2017 of burdensome EU legislation that could hinder our current work in this area, as undertaken by the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

There then followed a political discussion on new regulation for organic produce, which will continue into the upcoming Maltese Presidency.

Several other items were discussed under ‘any other business’:

• Austria lodged a request to maintain the current level of support for first generation biofuels, supported by other Member States. While noting this remains the responsibility of Commissioner Cañete, Commissioner Hogan informed Council that the reduction of support was very modest, pertaining to a very small part of the biofuel sector.
• France debriefed the Council on a conference of Mediterranean countries that took place in Tirana, Albania, where agricultural and rural development and migrations in the Mediterranean zone was discussed.
• Commissioner Andriukaitis informed the Council about the first meeting of the Food Waste Platform.
• Commissioner Andriukaitis also updated Ministers on the work of the expert group on accelerating sustainable plant protection products. The advisory group recommended speeding up approvals of low-risk active substances, measures to stimulate businesses to apply for authorisations and the identification of low-risk products already on the market.
• Commissioner Andriukaitis announced that the new regulation on plant pests was now in force. The Commission sees this new legislation as allowing a much more proactive approach to the prevention of the entry of new pests into the EU. Malta, as incoming Presidency, mentioned plans to establish fora to take forward further discussion on identifying further action.
• The Slovak Presidency explained that the Commission had issued a guidance note expressing a preference for the use of the Plant Breeders’ Rights framework, rather than the Patent Legislation to register new strains. This was welcomed by a range of other Member States.

On 23 June, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. Leaving the EU will present us with opportunities to better manage fisheries in our waters and become global champions for sustainable fishing, while protecting the marine environment.

Retaining market access between the UK and the EU will be a significant benefit to the food and farming sectors in both the UK and Europe. In 2015, the UK exported £11 billion of agri-food and drink products to the EU, and imported £28 billion. We aim to secure a mutually beneficial deal that delivers market access for the benefit of food and drink producers both in the UK and the EU.

Since Defra was created in June 2001, there have been 39 instances covering 9 Senior Civil Servants who have taken sickness absence for mental health reasons which amounts to 535 days. However, for reasons of anonymity it is not possible to provide a monthly breakdown in the answer as the numbers are too small to report.

Defra is committed to reducing work related absence due to mental illness. We have an active Wellbeing network (Break the Stigma) which shares best practice, activities and events relating to all aspects of wellbeing. Mental health has been a key priority since the network was established. Defra’s Wellbeing Advisors work closely with the network’s organisers to support events and develop group communications including a series of inspiring blogs by staff.

Our Employee Assistance Provider can be contacted 24/7, 365 days a year and employees can receive up to 6 sessions of free counselling. The Charity for Civil Servants which is another superb source of support, also offers advice on a wide range of issues.

The number of additional staff the Department has employed on both fixed term and a permanent basis since 23 June 2016 until 23 January 2017 is 215.

This figure includes internal transfers and Civil Servants from Other Government Departments.

We have been able to provide early certainty on payments to 2020 with the guarantees of funding. No decisions have yet been taken about future support beyond 2020. Before issuing detailed proposals, we will shortly be publishing for consultation two Green Papers setting out our ambitions for food, farming, and the environment. We look forward to working with industry, rural communities, and the public to shape our plans for the future outside the EU.

The Government takes a science-based approach on the authorisation of genetically modified (GM) products, and is consulting the devolved administrations (DA) on the proposed approval of three types of GM maize to be considered at an EU meeting on 27 January. An EU decision permitting the cultivation of these crops will not apply in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland because the DAs have an agreed exemption. Nor would the crops be expected to be grown in England, because they are designed to control insect pests that are not a problem for farmers in the UK.

The EU School Milk Scheme under which the UK claims around £3.5 million of EU funding annually plays a valuable role in encouraging the consumption of dairy products and contributing to the development of healthy eating habits from an early age. A much larger nursery milk scheme for children under 5 is funded by UK Health and Education departments and is worth £67million a year. We will continue to participate in the new EU school scheme from 1 August 2017. We will need to consider the longer-term approach to school milk provision as part of future domestic policy and we will ensure consultation with stakeholders in relation to any future scheme for the UK.

In order to deliver grants to farmers under the scheme by the European Commission’s deadline of 30 September 2017, it was necessary to use equipment that had already been costed by Natural England. The permeable ammonia-recycling crust was not on the list of equipment that had been previously costed.

We want to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole of the UK. We will work very carefully to ensure the right powers are returned to Westminster and the right powers are passed to the devolved administrations. No decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them.

All Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) 2016 payments issued, and included in the published performance results, are complete based on the current 2016 claim information held by the Rural Payments Agency. Those who have received a BPS Financial Support Payment are not and therefore not included in the reported figures paid.

Food security is dependent on a number of factors including increasing production sustainably, reducing waste and ensuring open markets around the world to facilitate trade.

The UK’s current production to supply ratio is 76% for indigenous-type foods and 61% for all foods. This has remained steady over the last decade and is typical in the context of the last 150 years.

The Government wants to grow more and sell more British food and will be publishing a 25 year Food and Farming Plan.

My hon. Friend is right. I do not want to divert from this debate, but in all the international wildlife conventions, we will regain our voice, our voting rights and our seat at the table.

Most importantly, leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to deliver the second manifesto commitment that I mentioned at the start of this debate, by placing animal welfare at the heart of the design of future agricultural policy. We should recognise that there are some limits to how far increased regulation can go. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there is no point raising standards here so high that we effectively end up exporting our industry to other countries because we have exposed producers here to unfair competition from countries with far lower animal welfare standards.

We are seriously considering the possibility of introducing incentives to encourage and support higher animal welfare standards and different approaches to animal husbandry that can reduce our reliance on antibiotics, improving animal health while delivering animal welfare outcomes. In the past couple of years, a number of countries have been doing interesting work in the area. Denmark has developed a voluntary three-tier system for its pig sector to reward producers who show commitment to higher animal welfare standards. The Dutch have a similar system called “the better life system”.

Germany is particularly interesting. It has something called the Tierwohl system, which financially rewards farmers who adopt standards of animal welfare that go above and beyond the regulatory minimum. I have had representations from organisations such as the RSPCA and others that would like us to explore similar options here in the UK. As part of our policy development, we are considering all those ideas. As I said earlier, we have a manifesto commitment to place greater emphasis on animal welfare in future policy.

I turn to a few of the points made by hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet raised the issue of trade and the context of the World Trade Organisation. As a former Minister who understands the issues well, she will know that yes, there are WTO rules. There have been disputes about the degree to which reliance can be placed on animal welfare standards in trade negotiations, but equally, there are legal precedents and case law to support the use of ethical bans on certain practices and the reflection of animal welfare in trade agreements. I do not believe that anything along the lines that we would propose will cause any difficulty whatever with WTO rules.

My right hon. Friend mentioned farrowing crates. It is a complex issue. We led the way in banning sow stalls. I declare an interest: my brother has a pig farm, and raises a rare breed of outdoor pig. There is a danger of sows lying on their piglets; I put it to hon. Members that that is not great for the welfare of the piglet concerned. It is a genuine management challenge, and it is not straightforward. She also mentioned the possibility of offering incentives to encourage free-range systems and perhaps pasture-based grazing systems. Those are exactly the kinds of idea that we are at least willing to consider as part of our work.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), raised the issue of zero grazing. There is some academic research showing that by a small margin, depending on the weather, cows prefer to be outdoors in pastures rather than housed indoors. More importantly—I used to run a farm where we had livestock—any farmer who has turned cattle out to grass in April and watched their reaction knows that cattle prefer grazing, all other things being equal.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) raised trade, which I believe I have addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), a long-standing campaigner on the issue, mentioned live exports, as did others. While we are in the EU, it would be against free movement rules to place an ethical ban on the export of live animals, but once we leave the European Union, we will be free to do so, if that is the decision of the UK Government; there will be nothing to stand in our way. The only thing that I would say is that it is a little more complex than one might think in that we export breeding stock, pigs in particular, and that is a different issue. There are also matters to do with different animals travelling better than others. The area is complex, but certainly one that we would be free to look at after leaving the EU.

Finally, a number of hon. Members mentioned CCTV in slaughterhouses. A report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which advises all the Administrations in the UK, highlighted some of the benefits of CCTV. Method-of-slaughter labelling, however, is contentious. The European Union did some research and we are waiting to see the next steps. We have always been clear that we do not rule out looking at some kind of labelling for method of production or slaughter, although again the issue is complex.

We have had a fantastic debate, with many interesting contributions. I hope that I have been able to reassure Members that the Government take the matter very seriously.

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I apologise for being late. I was given some unreliable intelligence from my Whips about the possibility of a second vote.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) on securing this important debate about the importance of animal welfare in farm policy once we leave the European Union. The debate about agricultural policy is often characterised by a tension between agricultural production on the one side and environmental outcomes on the other, and there is often antagonism between the two. Animal welfare, which is the third issue in this debate, is all too often overlooked, but it is of equal importance. The kindness and compassion that we show to animals that we raise for food are a hallmark of a civilised society.

I begin by paying tribute to the fantastic work of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess) have been actively involved in that group for many years, and they have done sterling work in the Conservative party. I also pay tribute to individuals such as Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming, who for the best part of 20 years has been a calm and cogent voice of reason in this debate and provided really incisive analysis on some of these issues, and to the progress that groups such as the RSPCA have made to develop assurance schemes that have improved consumer transparency in this area.

The Government made two key manifesto commitments on farm animal welfare: first, to promote animal welfare in international trade negotiations, and secondly, to place greater emphasis on animal welfare in the design of agriculture policy. The Conservative party was the only one of the main parties to put such specific pledges about agriculture in its manifesto. I am heartened to see so many colleagues taking such an active interest in what is a manifesto commitment for this Government.

The UK has a good record on animal welfare. World Animal Protection rates the UK in the upper tier of its league, in joint first place alongside other countries. We led the way in calling for a ban on veal crates, bringing an end to battery cages for laying hens and banning sow stalls.

Several hon. Members—particularly the two Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)—have raised the issue of regulation when we leave the European Union. It is the case that much of the current regulation relating to farm animal welfare and the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter is governed predominantly by EU law. I reassure hon. Members that nothing will change overnight. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the great repeal Bill will, in the first instance, convert all existing EU law relating to animal welfare on to a legitimate UK legal basis, and we will be free to improve that legislation over time.

It is important that we do not have a “glass half empty” view and say, as some Members often do, “That means you’re going to have a race to the bottom and reduce standards.” There are areas where current EU standards are wanting and we may want to review things. For instance, the latest science raises some concerns about the very prescriptive nature of the gas mix that is used during the slaughter of pigs, and pigs’ aversion to that. There is an argument for revisiting the nature of that gas mixture. It will be easier for us to do that and to improve standards during slaughter once we are free from the European Union.

However, some things will change. The UK will regain its own seat at the World Organisation for Animal Health, or the OIE—an international body that promotes animal welfare standards. While we are in the European Union, it is literally unlawful for us to express an independent view without first getting permission from the European Commission. That will change when we become an independent country again; we will be free to make the case internationally for higher animal welfare standards and share some of our great scientific expertise to help other countries around the world raise their standards too.

Alongside the much larger free nursery milk scheme for infants run by the Department of Health and the Department for Education, the EU School Milk Scheme plays a valuable role in encouraging the consumption of dairy products and contributing to the development of healthy eating habits from an early age. We will continue to participate in the new EU scheme from 1 August 2017. Officials are working on the detailed arrangements and we are consulting closely with stakeholders on our plans.

We held meetings with all of the Devolved Administrations, including Scotland, in Cardiff on 8 November, in Brussels at December Council on 11 December and we plan a further meeting in February.

In addition, officials from Defra are in regular contact with officials in Scottish Government regarding plans for the Great Repeal Bill.

We held meetings with all of the Devolved Administrations, including Scotland, in Cardiff on 8 November, in Brussels at December Council on 11 December and we plan a further meeting in February.

In addition, officials from Defra are in regular contact with officials in Scottish Government regarding plans for the Great Repeal Bill.

The numbers of prosecutions, those which were found guilty and sentenced, and those which resulted in prison sentence under section 4 and 9 of Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be viewed in the table below.

Court proceedings data for 2016 are planned for publication in May 2017.

Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4

Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 9

Outcome

2014

2015

2014

2015

Proceeded against

1,016

775

391

302

Found guilty

800

612

266

208

Sentenced

801

614

263

208

of which

Immediate Custody

78

55

10

21

The table includes the following offences:

1. Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4(1)(2), 32(1)(2), 9.

2. The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

1. Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

1. The numbers of offenders sentenced and found guilty in the same year may differ due to some being sentenced the following year.

   Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. PQ 60104 & 60113

The number of proceedings heard at magistrates’ courts, and those which were found guilty, sentenced and had a fine imposed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales, 2014 and 2015 can be viewed below.

Court proceedings data for 2016 are planned for publication in May 2017.

Outcome

2014

2015

Proceeded against

1,433

1,103

Found Guilty

1,080

831

Sentenced

1,078

833

of which Fine

219

143

The table includes the following offences:

1. Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4(1)(2), 5(a)(b)32(1)(2(40), 6(1)(a)(b)2,8,9,12, 7(a)(b)2, 8(1)(a to i),(2), 9, 11(1)(3), 13(6), 18(12),34(9)

2. The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

3. Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

4. The numbers of offenders sentenced and found guilty in the same year may differ due to some being sentenced the following year.