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.

The department was not collecting this data over the period in question so we are unfortunately not able to provide this information.

In Autumn 2015, Government issued guidance to central government departments on how to take social and economic factors into account in their procurements to help level the playing field for UK steel producers. This guidance has now been extended to the wider public sector.

Since publication of the guidance, Government has been working closely with departments to monitor its impact and ensure delivery. There are no plans to share Government level data publicly, due to its provisional nature.

On 13th December 2016, the Government published its indicative future steel requirements to 2020, to enable UK steel manufacturers to better plan in advance of future government contracts.

In terms of EU direct payments to farmers under Pillar 1 of the Common Agricultural Policy, the table below contains figures from Defra’s ‘Agriculture in the UK’ 2015 Publication which show the relationship between:

1. the Total Income From Farming in the UK in the last five years and

2. the total amount of EU funded payments under the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) and the predecessor Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in the UK over the past five years

£billion (current prices)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Total Income from Farming

5.043

4.620

5.367

5.285

3.769

Total Direct Payments from BPS/SPS

2.805

2.600

2.691

2.336

2.176

Based on these figures, the average value of direct payments from the Basic Payment Scheme and Single Payment Scheme equates to approximately 53 per cent of Total Income from Farming in the UK over the last five years.

This excludes any figures associated with EU co-financed agri-environment schemes which compensate for costs incurred and income foregone.

Outside of the EU, we have an opportunity to redesign policies to better deliver on our objectives. My department is carrying out initial analysis on future agricultural policy that will, in due course inform cost assessments.

However, in advance, we will shortly be publishing for consultation two Green Papers setting out our ambitions for food and farming and for the environment to inform these important decisions.

Defra has had no discussions with its Australian counterpart on the constitutional status and sovereignty of Norfolk Island.

Since the beginning of 2012 the European Commission has published 14 Commission Implementing Decisions which include UK disallowance. This relates to 55 instances where the European Commission asserted that UK controls, across the four administrations, failed to meet the rules set by the EU.

My Department is in the process of reviewing the animal establishment licencing schemes, including those that regulate the breeding and selling of dogs, with the aim of improving animal welfare and reducing burdens on businesses and local authorities. We note the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)’s campaign to ban third party sales of dogs. We consider that the best way forward is to improve welfare standards for both licensed dog breeders and pet sellers.

Retaining tariff free access between the UK and the EU is a significant benefit to the food and farming sectors in both the UK and Europe. In 2015, the UK exported £7.5 billion of food to the EU, and imported £18 billion; for all agri-food and drink products this increases to £11 billion and £28 billion respectively. We aim to secure a mutually beneficial deal that delivers market access for the benefit of farmers and food manufacturers both in the UK and the EU.

We do not publish information on investigations undertaken by Defra Investigation Services given the confidential nature of such enquiries. However, we are considering an FOI request regarding the subsequent review that was carried out on the original investigation referred to by my Honourable Friend.

Every year, each Cornwall Councillor gets a small pot of funding to help local groups and organisations with funding. In the past, I have paid over the last year or so for new life-jackets for Porthleven Gig Club, Porthleven Village Show, Porthleven School PTA and the Porthleven Food Festival to name a few.

Since the removal old goal posts on the Moors (because they were at the end of their life) there has been a strong request from both parents and young people to have these replaced.

Goal posts that are designed for play-parks are not cheap, but I am very pleased to say yesterday I placed an order for two goal posts both with nets for the Moors playing field. These goal posts will be paid for out of my community fund.

The new goal posts for the Moors playing field

Further good news is the delivery of these goal posts should be within two-weeks and installation soon after. Porthleven Town Council should also be thanked because they will be funding the installation costs (concrete) and the future maintenance of the goal posts.

Disallowance relating to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is paid from national, not CAP scheme, funds.

Defra is amongst those Government Departments whose work is most closely linked to and impacted by EU activity, legal frameworks and funding. A number of roles within the Department will support EU work relating to the Great Repeal Bill to some degree.

The resourcing of EU Exit work is a key priority of the Department and will be subject to on-going assessment. Work continues to identify the number of dedicated posts required in the long term. Staffing resources will be deployed flexibly across the entire Defra agenda, including work on the Great Repeal Bill.

Defra is very aware that seasonal workers from other EU countries will be one of the complex issues that will have to be resolved as part of our exit negotiation and future relationship with the EU.

We are currently working with colleagues across government to understand the issues and explore options.

Defra is also working closely with the devolved administrations to establish their views and priorities to get the best possible outcome for all parts of the United Kingdom as we leave the EU.

The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (Scotland) Regulations 2007 is a devolved matter. Defra does not hold any information on how many retailers have been fined since it was introduced.