Back in September 2016, Helston Town Council decided not to apply for a Road Closure for the Porthleven Road during Flora Day 2017. I was very concerned this was an error and would put the public at risk as my previous blog highlights.

Several months on and at last weeks Helston Town Council meeting I congratulated the Mayor, and the Councillors for agreeing to reconsider their previous decision. In reaffirming my concerns, I wrote another letter to the town council. My second letter is as follows:

“Further to my letter dated the 7th September 2016 which expressed how I was very disappointed that Helston Town Council had decided not to apply for a Road Closure for the Porthleven Road on Flora Day 2017; I am pleased this issue is being discussed again by the Town Council.

My view on this issue is exactly the same as it was beforehand. This road must be closed on the grounds of public safety due to the sheer number of people attending Flora Day and the Fair. Without a Road Closure it will put the public in danger from vehicle movements

Furthermore, not closing the Porthleven Road will lead to serious congestion due the amount of traffic trying to navigate the area both near the Fairground Car Park and at the junction to Furry Way. This will in turn increase the risk for the public.

There is a minimal cost to having a Road Closure, as the cost of applying for one can be absorbed into the other application for the event.

The viewpoint of Cornwall Council should pay for this because it receives around £1400 in payment from the Fair is not possible. As you know this income is used to maintain the car park and keeps it free. Without the income, it makes my role more difficult in arguing against making it a fee paying car park.

I have asked the Fair operators for a contribution to help with the minimal costs for operating a Road Closure but as yet, I have not had a formal response to this request.

This closure has proven to work in the past, and I strongly believe it should continue. I urge you as public servants to reconsider your previous decision and apply for a Road Closure for Flora Day 2017.”

In the months between my two letters , I have been talking to the Fair operators, Anderton & Rowland to see if they would help out financially. I am pleased to say they agreed to my request for £500 to help with the small costs of a Road Closure. All credit to Anderton & Rowland for this, as they understood the importance of this Road Closure (their response came just after I sent my letter).

I am very pleased to say, Helston Town Council  at last nights during one of their committee meetings, they have reconsidered their original decision and will now go-ahead and apply for a Road Closure for the Porthleven Road for Flora Day 2017.

Whilst I disagreed with their original decision, credit to the town council for now applying for this Road Closure. Thank you.

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 planned increases to charging in Cornwall Council car parks will not go ahead as planned.  In understanding the concern, the Leader has said in a letter to various members that:

“we recognise that the time-frame given to the Parking Service and town representatives between the approval of the budget in November and the deadline for the new Order at the end of January allowed little time for dialogue”. 

The Leader followed on by saying

“we have therefore agreed to delay the implementation of the proposed schedule to allow further discussion to take place” (abridged version).

This is good news, and I thank the Leader for stepping in and trying to find a way forward. However, it is not clear how long this period of discussion will be. Myself and Porthleven Town Council wrote and highlighted how harmful the increased could be locally, especially the introduction of the after 4pm charging. In this period of ‘discussion’ I will again raise the issue.

However, what surprised me is car parking charges is such an emotive issue, few took the time to actually officially complain about it. As from the consultation, there were only 17 (me being one of them) individual responses from Cornwall Councillors, 15 from town and parish councils (Porthleven TC included), six from business groups, and 78 from the public. Though, credit to the 47 Councillor who signed a letter to the Leader and CEO expressing their concerns on the proposed charges.

My previous blog on the proposals can be found HERE

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.

Today, at Cornwall Council’s packed Cabinet agenda was an item named European Capital of Culture.This was a request for £536k to be assigned to a bid for Capital Culture of the year in 2023. Basically, this money would be used to work up a bid in a competitive process in a winner takes all prize. There really is no prize for second place apart from being a few hundred-thousand lighter in the bank balance.

The deadline for submission is nine-months away which leaves little real-time for a comprehensive winning bid. Whereas the others in the competition like Dundee have had over a year to date be working on their bid. In fact, the average ECOC bid takes two to three years (as highlighted the ECOC application guidance) and Cornwall will have less than 9 months from start to finish. Not good odds to wager over £536k on. The report also highlights:

“Bidding for ECoC is complex and requires a significant budget. Financial support will be required to support the bidding process. Based on intelligence from other bids and an officer assessment of the resource required to deliver a credible bid by October 2017 it is calculated that a budget of approximately £536,000 will be required. This will be spent on cultural activity which will be linked to a large-scale community mobilisation effort, PR and marketing, a creative director and bid team. This is considered a modest budget for a bid to be ECoC”.

In an ideal world, this sort of thing might be rather nice, but I put this on the nice-to-do list, rather than being strategically important to do. I say this because the Council for the last several years has been cutting and reducing services you and I receive because of the budgetary pressures the Council face from the cuts in funding and increased demand for services. But despite these pressures, a cool £536k can be found for working up this bid, or what is in reality, one massive punt. My view is we should be concentrating on our core business, rather than chasing ego-badges like this.

However, if the £536k is not bad enough, then wait for this. If the bid is actually successful, then the Council will be required to contribute to at least £10m to make the whole project work. Yes £10m, probably more. With all the pressures we are already we are facing, this money would have to be found from existing budgets, or borrowed. As there is nothing in the current four-year budget plan.

For me, this £10m (and the £536k) could be spent far better on the most vulnerable, where it would have far greater and long-term positive benefits, or protecting libraries and other key service that are under pressure rather than a grand title of ‘Culture Capital’.

The programme title is European Capital of Culture, yet for some reason this is being sold as a Truro-Cornwall bid. My belief it is being sold as a Truro-Cornwall bid is to appease those who think funding is Truro-centric. If it was to be Cornwall wide, then the cost of putting this on would spiral. I heard from a member of the City Council that Truro City Council knew nothing of this bid up to a few days ago. Not a great start really is it?

In the report, it claims “It is reasonable to assume that the economic
impact of winning the competition could be circa £100m over the course of the year”. Yet who benefits from this? The tax payer doesn’t, as the only way the Council could recoup its costs if it received income from business rates from newly created businesses as a direct result of the successful bid.

In trying to convince the Cabinet today, there was a two page list of people saying how wonderful this would be. Yet, these people from well-known organisation have not committed any cash to this. We can all say how wonderful something is if you are not paying for it.

I was the lone voice in the Cabinet today. I could not support this bid as it is flawed from the very start and has next very little chance of winning. This bid is a waste of £536k and I believe this money could be spent on more vital service areas.

I voted against this. And I am glad I did.

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.