There has been a marked increase in popularity of the Pet Travel Scheme in GB. In 2014 APHA issued 80,274 new pet passports to their official veterinarians, 119,704 in 2015 and 95,449 in 2016.

In a broadside Nelson would be proud of, Cornwall Council’s Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny committee via a specially formed sub-committee have damned the Outline Business Case (OBC) of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan in Cornwall (STP).

In coming to their conclusion, the sub-committee over the past few weeks has taken evidence from more than 40 different organisations and have spoken to a wide range of people. From this, all the information has been taken into account which formed the reports findings today.

The report is as follows:

“We believe that the strategic intent of the Sustainability and Transformation plan is a positive. Very few would criticise the proposed investment in improving health and wellbeing and there is a commitment to the merger of health and social care in the Devolution Deal for Cornwall.

There are aspects of the Outline Business Case (OBC) and the engagement process we wish to comment upon and these are headed individually.  It is expected that these concerns will be addressed in the Full Business Case (FBC).

Finance

We have serious reservations about the accuracy, achievability and viability of the financial plans and these have to be addressed. There was inadequate evidence in the OBC to support the saving figures presented. There appears to be a lack of attention given to capital costs, the cost of transformation and the future proceeds of any property rationalisation.

Engagement with the Public

In our view the process of engagement with the public was inadequate and seriously flawed. There was inconsistency of information provided dependent on the facilitator and this has to be rectified. The questionnaire contained closed questions, was ill conceived and was unprofessional. Members of the public were left feeling alienated, angry and frustrated.

We are disappointed that the report from the engagement events was not available when we were considering this issue.

Engagement with Workforce and Key Stakeholders

We are extremely concerned with the lack of consultation, awareness and engagement with key stakeholders such as GPs and community pharmacists. There appears to have been an absence of any meaningful involvement or engagement with staff across all levels of organisations. It is apparent that there has been limited engagement with the voluntary sector and care providers.

Devon

We want to be assured that there is meaningful consultation with all providers of health services to residents of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and this should include services located in Devon. The impacts of any changes Devon undertake as part of their STP and/or Success Regime should be considered and risk assessed by those responsible for the STP in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. This matter should not be retrospective or reactive.

Mental Health

The parity of esteem is not evidenced within the OBC and this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Others not Visible in the OBC

It is recognised that the ‘One Vision’ plan for services to children is being developed, but more information regarding this must feature in the FBC. We do not believe that those aged under 25 are visible in the document, and there is little evidence of those who have co-morbidities, who are not frail elderly.

Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group

The Interim Chief Officer at Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group acknowledged that they have severe financial challenges, and are still in discussion with NHS England. The increasing debt level within Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group is worrying and the impact on the whole system needs to be addressed.

Closure of Beds

Any proposals within the FBC to reduce the number of beds across the system must clearly demonstrate that they will meet the criteria for bed closures as set out by Simon Stevens. Whilst the test applies to ‘significant’ bed numbers this does not appear to have been nationally quantified as yet. We believe that reduction in bed numbers across the landscape resulting from the STP process would on the basis of aggregation meet this requirement. We wish particularly that it is unmistakably demonstrated that sufficient alternative provision will be in place alongside or ahead of bed closures, and that the new workforce will be there to deliver it.

Governance and Democratic Accountability

We believe that there is a weakness and a lack of clarity in the governance of the STP. The OBC does not adequately address these aspects. The FBC needs to be clear and will need to evidence how the STP programme is governed and how it will be democratically accountable.

Middle Management

We need to be assured in the FBC that there is full engagement with middle managers and they reflect the needs of the final plan. This cannot be ignored as it will increase insularity.

Accountable Care System/Organisation

There is a lack of clarity with regards to the mandate to create, and the future development of, an Accountable Care System/Organisation. We acknowledge that the current structure split by purchaser and provider is not suitable however; we are concerned about the lack of detail about how the Accountable Care System/Organisation model would be applied to the NHS and Social Care provision for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.  The FBC needs to evidence how this model would work and what differences it would make, including for those who do not use Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust as their main provider. If there are legal or national organisational barriers to the progression of the discussions regarding an Accountable Care System/Organisation, these should be progressed through the Devolution Deal negotiations.

Strategic Workforce Planning

We are anxious at the apparent dichotomy of workforce planning and the strategic direction being set in the OBC. The forecast reduction in the workforce across the system, especially within primary care, does not seem to be considered as responsibilities and service provision alters. There must be a comprehensive and long term strategic workforce plan within the FBC.

Definition of System Models

In evidence we received, there was obvious concern about replacement service models to those that currently exist. The FBC must contain details about the services and facilities that will be offered to localities across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. This detail should include clear specifications for urgent care centres and locality hubs in order for patients to fully understand the options they are being given.

Comprehensive Impact Assessment (CIA)

We are concerned that a CIA was not progressed with the development of the OBC. This should be completed and made publically available with the FBC.

The Use of External Consultants

We are worried about the use of external consultants and have concerns that funding has been taken from local NHS and Social Care budgets in order to pay for this work. We suggest that if such work is required in the future, instead of taking money from the system and spending it externally, the allocated monies should instead be invested locally to release experts within organisations to take forward the work.

Timeframe

The currently proposed timescale for the publication of the FBC is unachievable if it is to be the document required to effectively take forward the programme. We need clarity on when the FBC will be available, and information on any risks or impacts that a delay in its creation will bring. We will need assurance that the timeframes being given are realistic and whether there are alternative plans in the case of any significant risks.

Conclusion

Therefore, as a result of our considerations, concerns and research and the compelling information provided to us, we conclude that the OBC was not fit for purpose as a public document although it met NHS England requirements.  The engagement process was poor and ill judged.

The FBC must answer our concerns and have solid, clear, evidence for any proposals.

The role of scrutiny is as a critical friend, and we request that as the FBC is drafted, interim reports are brought at relevant intervals. These reports should include financial information”.

This goes to the heart of the matter, as the whole Government STP process is flawed and is not based on improving people health and giving a better service, but it is about cuts to the NHS. The Government wants Cornwall to save over £264m on what is spends on health.

I have long argued for a question to be answered. Are we doing the STP for the residents, or the Government? I believe it is the latter, and we should tell the Government to do their own dirty work if they want Cornwall to find all £264m worth of savings.

It is also not right to blame those professionals in Cornwall who are having to deliver the STP, as it is hard to deliver when the Government plan is so flawed in the first place.

All Government Departments are currently reviewing the EU laws that apply in their policy areas and how our withdrawal from the EU will affect the operation of those laws. The Government will set out the content of the Great Repeal Bill and its implications in due course.

We are currently analysing all EU fisheries legislation. No decision has yet been made on the extent to which the EU legislation governing the Common Fisheries Policy will be incorporated into domestic law.

Compensation for cattle which are compulsorily slaughtered for the purpose of controlling bovine TB in England is based on the actual market prices for 51 categories of bovines. Therefore, the total gross expenditure on compensation is the best measure of the value of those cattle, had they not been affected by the disease.

Total gross expenditure on compensation over the last five full financial years is set out below:

Financial year

Total gross expenditure for cattle compulsorily slaughtered for the purpose of controlling bovine TB in England (£m)

2011/12

31.6

2012/13

33.6

2013/14

31.2

2014/15

29.6

2015/16

29.7

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this very important debate. He is known for campaigning on these issues and, as he said, as a straight-talking Yorkshireman. In fact, I shall be visiting Yorkshire this Thursday and look forward to lots of straight talking about the future of agriculture policy.

This is a very important issue. UK consumers spend £200 billion on food, drink and catering services each year. Consumer confidence is key to the integrity of the supply chain, and that is more important in food than in anything else. As my hon. Friend pointed out, existing regulations are largely set out in the food information for consumers regulation, which dates from December 2014. It sets out in quite a bit of detail mandatory labelling requirements for the name of the food, the list of ingredients, ingredients causing potential allergy or intolerance, the quantity of specific ingredients or groups of ingredients, net quantity of the product, the use-by date, any special storage conditions, the name and address of the food business operator, the country of origin, instructions for use where required, alcoholic strength and nutrition declarations. That is a fairly comprehensive set of regulations. The UK helped to shape those regulations at UK level, but when we leave the EU we will take our position again on Codex, which is the UN body that tries to set standards internationally and is increasingly influential in this area.

On leaving the EU, there will be an opportunity to do things differently, to improve things and to introduce clearer labelling in some areas. However, it is also important that we have continuity; we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is why in the first instance the great repeal Bill will put all our existing regulations pertaining to food labelling and all other aspects on a legal footing in UK domestic law. There will then be opportunities over time to revisit things.

While I appreciate that this was not a major focus for my hon. Friend, we are looking at whether we can have some kind of mutual recognition of existing protected food names. That will be important for European countries seeking recognition in the UK as well. We are looking at whether we could use trademark regulations to develop brands in other areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned Angus beef. There is another issue with Angus beef, which is that it is not always—or indeed, rarely—from a pedigree Angus animal; it is usually from one crossed with a dairy animal. We will have the opportunity, through trademark regulations and other intellectual property law, to develop brands for pedigree native beef breeds, for instance, which we are looking at.

I want to talk predominantly about country of origin labelling, which was the focus of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer. As he pointed out, since April 2015 country of origin labelling has been required for fresh and frozen meat from pigs, sheep, goats and poultry. It has been required for fresh beef since 2003 and for certain fish products since 2000. As my hon. Friend knows, we have campaigned for the extension of mandatory country of origin labelling to cover some dairy products. The European Commission has always resisted that, arguing that it is too complex for processed products. Our view is that it might not be possible for all dairy products but would certainly be possible for some, such as butter and cheese, where it is relatively easy to identify country of origin. Once we leave the EU, there will be an opportunity to look at strengthening mandatory labelling in that area, if that were the view of the Government of the day.

My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that beef sometimes is not born, raised and slaughtered in the country of origin. My recollection of the regulations—I can double-check this—is that in the case of beef, for the label to state country of origin as UK the animal must be born, reared and slaughtered in the UK. For other meats, the animal must be reared and slaughtered in the UK. It is possible to say “slaughtered in the UK” if the animal is not born and reared here. The regulations cover this issue to some extent for fresh meat.

My hon. Friend also raised important issues about processed meats, which are more complex. A composite product such as a pizza might have vegetables on it from different parts of the country and might use flour from one country, meat from another or, indeed, meat from two countries. It is harder to put country of origin labelling on all processed meats.

There has been a growing tendency for other foods to be labelled voluntarily with their country of origin. For example, the vast majority of lightly processed meat products, such as bacon and sausages, already have country of origin labelling as part of a voluntary scheme, but it gets harder with some of the more complex products. I am always open to strengthening transparency for consumers. If there is a way of going further, beyond the issues we have highlighted previously in the case of dairy, we can look at that.

My hon. Friend mentioned method of production labelling. There are some very good voluntary schemes, such as the RSPCA Assured scheme, which recognises high standards of animal welfare, as well as the British Lion eggs and Red Tractor schemes. We are keen to encourage those further.

I want to touch on a couple of other points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) raised the issue of slightly dubious farm name brands used by supermarkets. That is a difficult area. While those cannot mislead, there are cases where, for instance, a brand celebrates a product of a particular standard. I have heard some people complain about the Duchy Organic label because the products are not always produced on Duchy farms; in fact, they rarely are. It nevertheless is an important organic standard that has recognition. This is a difficult area. Labels are not allowed to mislead people, but I accept that some labelling is in a slightly grey area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) talked about online shopping. We are discussing that with the National Farmers Union; it may be one way we can avoid voluntary principles. We have had a very good debate, and I will take on board these points.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

No direct comparison between the effectiveness of cage trapping and controlled shooting has been made. A combination of cage trapping and controlled shooting is the most efficient approach to obtain the required 70% population reduction to ensure disease control benefits.

The numbers of badgers removed by cage trapping and controlled shooting in the cull areas in 2016 was published in December 2016.

In August 2016 the Government published its badger control costs for 2013 -2015. These can be found on the GOV.UK website under Bovine TB Government badger control costs 2015.

The costs for the 2016 badger control operations are still to be finalised and will be published later this year.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 20 January 2017, PQ UIN 59926

The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 sets out comprehensive licensing and inspection requirements for zoos. Responsibility for administering these requirements rests with local authorities, which undertake annual inspections to ensure that zoos have sufficient levels of animal welfare.

Defra supports this by setting out minimum standards that zoos are expected to meet, via the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, and by maintaining a list of qualified zoo licensing inspectors who undertake periodical inspections of zoos for local authorities. These inspectors are competent to inspect animals in zoos and to advise on their management and on their welfare. Where there are concerns, local authorities have powers to impose conditions and to take further action where necessary.

Defra has also established a Zoos Expert Committee, which provides UK Ministers with independent technical advice, with a focus on the role of zoos in conservation, education and scientific research and on the operation and implementation of the zoo licensing system in the UK

Evidence indicates that dogs play an insignificant role in the persistence and spread of bovine TB in Great Britain, including transmission of the disease to cattle herds.

An independent study published in 2013 to identify and assess the impacts and risks associated with sky lanterns suggested that the risks to animals or damage to the environment by sky lanterns were relatively minor, and reported that voluntary action and initiatives have been shown to be effective.

Any action we take must be proportionate to the level of risk. An outright ban would be disproportionate in the circumstances, so across government, we have been taking forward a series of non-regulatory measures aimed at minimising the risks associated with sky lanterns and driving up safety standards. Local Authorities are also using existing powers to restrict or regulate the use of lanterns on council-owned land.

To date, 421 carcasses of badgers culled by controlled shooting in 2013 – 2016 have undergone post-mortem examination. Of these, 25 were found to have evidence of more than one hit.

Culled carcasses undergoing post-mortem examination have not been routinely tested for TB as the RBCT established that approximately one-third of badgers in areas of high incidence of TB in cattle were infected.

Defra has considered the report, ‘The welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses’, commissioned by the Welsh Government. It remains the position of the Department that there is insufficient evidence to justify a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses on welfare grounds. The Government intends to introduce primary legislation to effect a ban on ethical grounds.

EU Exit will fundamentally affect everything we do. This is my top priority, and underpins all of our work. Within this, we want to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than we found it; and we want to be a world leading food, farming and fishing nation: to grow more, sell more, and export more food around the world.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was amended in 2014 specifically to include a separate penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment for a dog attack on an assistance dog. This is, however, within the overall single offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control. Dog attacks on assistance dogs are therefore not recorded separately. As part of their campaign to change the law Guide Dogs UK reported in June 2013 that there were around ten such attacks a month.

Nine people have been killed by dogs on private property in England and Wales since the change in the law in May 2014 to extend the scope of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to all places.

The Office of National Statistics publishes annual data on injuries by dogs, but this does not distinguish between public and private property.

The Government takes the illegal importation of puppies seriously and does put in place deterrents to the illegal import of puppies into the United Kingdom Control Zone at Coquelles. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) is responsible for ensuring there are effective controls to prevent illegal movements into the Control Zone. APHA require approved carriers, in the case of Coquelles, Eurotunnel, to check 100% of animals travelling under the Pet Travel Scheme for compliance before they are permitted to enter the Control Zone. There is a formal agreement in place which details how Eurotunnel must carry out this function.

APHA has always carried out periodic inspections in the Control Zone to ensure that the carrier company’s checks are effective. Our approach to these pet animal checks and compliance monitoring has not changed. In addition APHA has also worked with carriers on specific intelligence led operations to identify and seize illegally imported puppies. APHA works with all carriers approved to transport pet animals and is currently in discussion on proposals to strengthen the effectiveness of the checks they are required to carry out.