Badger Cull

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

This debate has shown that the Secretary of State and the Minister have taken a brave decision to go for the cull, which is absolutely necessary. Farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in Devon feel that during 13 years of Labour Governments they were told that a vaccination was just over the hill. When Labour came to power, 6,000 cattle had TB, but when it left there were 30,000 with the disease. It is the duty of this Government to take action.

Farmers in my constituency are at their wits’ end. There is hardly a cattle farmer in Devon who has not been touched by TB—either it is affecting them at the moment, or during several tests they have not been able to sell cattle because TB is in the herd. All the time, we are removing cattle from herds with TB. We are cleansing those herds of TB. We then turn those cattle into the fields where there are infected badgers. The Secretary of State said clearly how infectious those badgers are—they are giving the cattle TB, so we have to take action.

A badger vaccine will not cure the infected badgers. Furthermore, the current vaccine has to be injected every year. That is not practical. The Opposition know that, but they will not face it. It is great shame that we cannot have cross-party support on the issue, because in the end the farmers cannot go on as they have been. Many of the cattle taken are heifers in the dairy herds, which provide much-needed good food and dairy products. They are being slaughtered. The world has a population of 7 billion and rising—we need more food, but the Opposition did nothing to cure the disease during their period in office.

We have said clearly that not only the badger cull is needed; there are strict provisions on cattle movements, and we will introduce even stricter ones. That is not popular with farmers, but they know that it is necessary provided the Government take the action to take out the infected wildlife.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking with great knowledge. He mentioned the importance of cattle movement control. Does he accept that the shift of bovine TB to remote areas is a result of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to Members speaking whether they give way or not, but those intervening, from whatever side of the House, should show self-restraint and make their interventions short. I call Neil Parish, who I presume has nearly ended.

[Neil Parish]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take any more interventions. I think that the hon. Lady was asking whether cattle spread disease to areas that were uninfected. Yes, they did to a degree. We have to tackle the disease in the hot-spot areas—where we have to cull—to make sure that cattle are not infected and that there is no chance of their being moved. We have to use every weapon available.

The key thing is what happened in the Republic of Ireland. While the number of cases of TB in Northern Ireland doubled, the number in the Republic halved over the same period. What did the Irish do? They culled their badgers. We have to be sure that we do all the relevant things.

Many of us are countrymen and countrywomen who would love to have the badger around. However, we want them to be healthy. We cannot leave diseased badgers in the field, to infect cattle and each other. Once we have reduced the number of badgers in those red-hot areas of TB, we will see a much healthier badger population. I also believe that we will not see as many badgers trying to mix with the cattle; there will not be the pressure on feed, which is paramount. We are not talking about a national cull of badgers. Our aim is not to exterminate badgers, but to cure cattle and badgers of TB and make sure that we have healthy food and livestock for our future.

The farming community feels despair because of the years of inaction from the previous Government. The community is not divided as the shadow Secretary of State tried to claim earlier; it is very much united by the fact that the disease has to be eradicated. That can be done by using all the methods, including a cull.

Finally, I go back to the Republic of Ireland, where statistics show that herds are half as likely to be reinfected with TB in areas where badgers have been culled. The beauty of the system there is that it involves badgers to cattle and cattle to badgers. Farming practices in the Republic are very much the same as those in Northern Ireland, which shows that a controlled cull of infected badgers will work. The farming community is behind the cull and I believe that, when it is explained, the public will also understand that the issue is about disease control and healthy cattle and wildlife.

Agricultural Wages Board

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I am proud to say that I still consider myself to be very much part of the farming community. I was saddened by the way in which the shadow Secretary of State tried to portray farming and farmers. I took part in a debate on Radio Devon after she had made a statement in which she went on at great length about things such as gangmasters, as if to suggest that every farmer was a terrible employer, but I do not recognise that situation in Devon or across the farming sector.

I am saddened by how the debate has proceeded. Some 40-odd years ago, I left school at the age of 16 to milk cows. I started on a farm of 50 acres. With the help of NatWest bank, which charged me enormous sums for the privilege, I managed to build up the farm to about 250 acres. During that period, we sometimes employed people, while at other times we did all the work ourselves.

Farming and the farming community have changed so much. Many hon. Members have made the case that farm workers are extremely valuable because of the type of farming that we carry out. In dairy farming, the milking parlours are equipped with computers which determine, for example, the amount of feed that the animals have. In the poultry industry, the buildings are temperature-controlled and farmers must make sure that the poultry are fit and free from disease. The same applies in the pig and sheep industries. The entire farming industry has changed hugely. When one gets on to a tractor, it lights up like a Christmas tree because there is so much computer equipment in it, reflecting the fact that it is difficult to operate. Of course we value the farm workers who operate all that equipment.

The farming industry is progressing. Reference was made to the green and pleasant land that we all live in and the good, healthy food that we are fortunate to have in this country. Who produces it? The farmers and the farm workers. We produce it together and I am proud to be part of that industry. I am sick to death of this debate, which is all about the long history of the Agricultural Wages Board and from where it started. I would be the first to admit that there was every good reason for it in those days, but now we have minimum wage legislation and an industry that has moved on. We want agriculture to be competitive and to move forward and employ more people on higher wages. We want a much more efficient industry.

I believe there is a bright future for agriculture. All the Agricultural Wages Board does is hark back to a past that we want to leave behind. It is right for us to take these decisions. The figures that we have show that more than 90% of agricultural workers are, fortunately, paid above the minimum wage, and we welcome that fact. During the debate, the sheer negativity from the Opposition has upset me. I would take their move to defend the Agricultural Wages Board much more seriously if they had replied to the question—they have been challenged three times on this—of whether they would make retention of the AWB a priority of the next Labour Government if this country were mad enough to put them back into power. I will therefore reply for them. They are not going to replace it. That is certain.

All the Opposition are here for today is to play politics and try to portray the farming community as terrible Victorian employers. We certainly are not. I say “we” because I consider myself still part of that farming community. I do not recognise the farming community painted by the Opposition. I find it offensive—I will be blunt about it—to be portrayed in that way. We do not employ people on poor wages. We want to progress people. During my farming career I had quite a number of young people who came and worked on the farm. We trained them, they moved on to other jobs and I am proud of that.

Let us not make this a debate about class warfare, with terrible rich landowners who are out there exploiting the workers. That is not what the debate is about. It should be about whether the Agricultural Wages Board is necessary. I do not believe it is. Why is it the only wages board left? It was left originally because there was no minimum wage legislation, but since that legislation has come in, there is no need for it. Hon. Members are worried that farmers and farm workers who have such responsible jobs on the modern farm cannot sit down with one another and negotiate their own wage rates. Surely hon. Members know that that is possible and that it will happen in the real world.

We have already abolished the Agricultural Wages Board, but I will be voting against the motion, which seeks to reinstate it, because I know full well that it will not be reinstated. It is a political ploy on the part of the Opposition to have a little debate. I end by reiterating, for the third time, how offended I am by the way in which the farming community has been portrayed this afternoon.

Flood Insurance

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for holding it.

Flooding has been a particular problem in the past year throughout my constituency. Tiverton, Cullompton, Seaton, Axminster and Uplyme have all been affected by flooding and Feniton has been flooded several times. We need to ensure that my constituents and people across the country get flood insurance that they can afford.

I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), but he speaks, naturally enough, on behalf of the insurance industry. It is a wonderful industry, but it is not terribly charitable. It is there to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with profit, but we must not set up a system that puts a levy on all insurance payers in order to pay for those in flood-risk areas.

[Jonathan Evans]

I do not want my hon. Friend to miss the fact that the “Flood Re” scheme, about which everybody has spoken, is a not-for-profit scheme. It is important that everybody recognises that.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me about that being a not-for-profit scheme, but that was not the point I was making.

My point is that when we levy all insurance payers to build up a fund that takes the risk of properties in high-risk areas away from the insurance companies, we should not be too generous because insurance companies are all about taking risk. That is what they are in business for. They should therefore be able to take their fair share of risk. I want to ensure that the insurance companies step up to the plate, but also that the Government help those who, in their areas, cannot get flood insurance under a private scheme on the free market. That is the balance that must be struck.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a precedent for the Government’s participating in the way that we are all advocating in the “Pool Re” arrangements that provide terrorism insurance cover?

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government can step up to the plate and be the insurer of last resort. However, the point I am making is that the Government must be the insurer of last resort, not the insurer of first resort.

Because there has been so much flooding in the past year, the insurance companies have naturally been putting the maximum possible pressure on the Government. They are in business, so it is right for them to do so. However, given that everybody who pays insurance across the piece will pay for the scheme, the Government must ensure that everybody is dealt with fairly.

It is essential that people who genuinely cannot get insurance—those who have been flooded two or three times, such as my constituents in Feniton—can get insurance in the future. The current statement of principles does not cover them. I am therefore looking forward to the Government putting in place a much better system so that people can access insurance irrespective of whether they have been flooded several times. It is not their fault that they live in a property that is flooding; in many respects, it is planning decisions that generate floods.

In the village of Feniton, there have been appeal decisions allowing more houses to be built where the appeal inspector has actually recognised in his brief that the village will flood and might flood further as a result of the development, but has allowed the houses anyway because the district council has not got its five-year housing plan up to speed. That means that the poor people down the bottom of Feniton will get flooded even more. What is the logic of that? This must be not only about flood insurance but about a planning policy that says we do not build on floodplains or on hills above villages so that the water runs off and floods the people at the bottom end of the village even more. This is something I get quite excited about, because the people who get flooded should not have to put up with it.

Other hon. Members have talked about ensuring that the money for the Bellwin scheme is available when, for example, roads are washed away by floods. Very often, the Government claim that Bellwin is available to local authorities, but when the latter claim it, the Government and the bureaucracy decide that many of the proposed schemes to cover flood damage are not eligible. That has to be dealt with.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bellwin scheme is only for immediate and emergency repairs, which it is often not possible for local authorities to carry out?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a road or bridge is washed away, the local authority might not be able to put it right immediately, but it will still have an effect on local people and local authority spend.

I am keen for the Government to negotiate a system that gives people access to affordable flood insurance in high-risk areas; otherwise, we will end up putting a levy on all insurance payers, only to find that people cannot get genuinely affordable insurance. That is key. I will want to see in the proposal what the word “affordable” means, because what is affordable to one person is not affordable to another. I do not want the insurance companies gobbling up a great deal of money and then not offering affordable assurance to my constituents in villages and towns that have been flooded.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I have to remind my hon. Friend and the House that this is an overall European competence. Under regulation 178/2002 we must work within the European regime, and having an independent agency is very much part of that. I pay tribute to the work that the agency has conducted under great pressure in recent weeks, working very closely with the industry and conducting an extraordinarily large number of tests—5,430, as I said. Once we have seen where this criminal conspiracy began and once we have found the criminals—I remind the House that this is an international problem, with 23 countries involved—we will begin to look at the lessons learned. I am clear that within this regime we must have more testing of product and more random testing of finished product.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that we can learn from this is to have much better, honest labelling and to know exactly where our processed meat product comes from and that it is produced to good farm-assured standards such as the red tractor scheme in this country?

[Mr Paterson]

I agree that clearer labelling could help, but we are up against a criminal conspiracy and I think the criminals would have got through. I had a constructive meeting with the French, German, Austrian and Finnish Ministers in Brussels last week, and we are asking the European Commission to accelerate its report on the labelling and marking of the country of origin.

Responsible Dog Ownership

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for securing the debate.

I am saddened by the comments made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because until then we kept the debate fairly non-party political. It is a bit rich to say that nothing happened and no people were bitten in the 13 years that Labour were in power, and had time to do something, and to blame everything on the coalition Government. However, because of limited time, I will not rant and rave about that for too long.

I say to the Minister that I very much welcome the fact that the Government have listened since the first consultation. Originally, only puppies were to be microchipped, which would have taken an awfully long time, but the Government have now said, quite rightly, that all dogs should be microchipped. I would like to see that come in sooner rather than later.

The Committee took evidence from postal workers, and I have every sympathy for all postal workers—as well as other workers who go into homes, such as midwives—who have been bitten, especially where particular dogs are known to bite. That is also one of the conundrums: it is not only about which dog bites and whether it is vicious, because many people know that their dogs bite yet they still do not lock them up, keep them out of the way, or keep them under control. That is what we have to emphasise. I am a farmer by background, and I know that animals will sometimes turn, as will dogs. It is unfortunate when animals turn, but it is not the same penalty as for dogs that are known to be dangerous. I welcome, therefore, what we can do to help with measures on private property. I also welcome the fact that we will have universal microchipping, but we must have an accurate database. At Blue Cross or Battersea dogs home, they can only identify the owners of about 30% of the dogs that come in and are microchipped. An up-to-date database must be put together.

However, let us deal with dangerous dogs in particular, and with people who breed dogs to be dangerous, and beat them to make them dangerous. It is not the dogs that are at fault, but the people. They will not get their dogs microchipped, and they will not get insurance, because they do not want their dogs linked to them. They want to ensure that they run beneath the radar screen, which is why we have to be careful when bringing in legislation that we do not make things more onerous for all the people who legitimately own dogs, while not getting to people who breed dogs to be dangerous, and beat them up to make them even more dangerous. Whether it is a DOGBO, an ASBO or whatever sort of BO, we have to proactively get those people. It is not only about legislation. People can legislate as much as they like; we can legislate in Parliament until the cows come home, but it does not mean that the law will be enforced. Very often, there is enough legislation, but it is not being enforced.

I turn to the issue of breeds. Either we keep the Dangerous Dogs Act in its entirety, and we add to the breed-specific legislation, or we scrap it. A lot of dogs are crossed with Japanese breeds, Canadian breeds, and all sorts of breeds, which can actually mean that a dog is just as vicious as a pit bull. Again, that is done to get round the legislation, and the people doing it are not the nicest people in society. They do not go to Sunday school; they are out to cause damage to people. Other Members mentioned what has happened to guide dogs. We have had the evidence. I cannot imagine being blind, because fortunately I have my sight, but it is bad enough for someone who is sighted to have their dog attacked as they are walking along the road. However, if a blind person is walking along the road and their dog is viciously attacked, it is hugely upsetting, dramatic and traumatic. Not only is it traumatic for the owner, but if the dog is destroyed or killed, or maimed in such a way that it can no longer carry out its function and help the blind person, there is a huge financial burden, because it probably costs £1,500 to £2,000 to train a dog on the routes the person takes. We have to take such matters seriously.

We also have to take seriously the internet sale of puppies, not only from this country, but from eastern Europe and the Republic of Ireland. A lot of puppies are coming into the country, and many of them are not only dangerous, but potentially very ill. People who are sold such puppies have enormous vet bills in order to put the dogs right, and sometimes the dog dies and, again, there is huge trauma.

We need not worry too much about the cost of microchipping, because many of the charities that deal with dogs, such as Blue Cross and Battersea, are happy to put in the microchips to help people who cannot afford them.

I think the Minister is sympathetic to the cause, and I really want to hear from him what we will do about tracing people who are breeding and training dangerous dogs, and inflicting them on innocent individuals and other dogs.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I apologise to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), both of whom sought to catch my eye but unfortunately have been squeezed out because of the time.

Horsemeat

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

That is absolutely glorious! Labour Members are attacking their own creation. That is one of the institutions they created and of which they are most proud. In previous food crises, they said politicians must not be involved and that there should be an independent agency. However, the hon. Gentleman is attacking the independent FSA, which is run effectively by Lord Rooker, who I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows well, because they are ex-colleagues. As a coalition, we are co-operating to see whether we can make the system work. There are improvements to make—I will come to those—but we are working with the FSA and respecting its independence. That is why, while the issue one of DNA and before the step change of the Findus case, we left the independent agency to take the prime lead. It is not appropriate for me to infringe on its independence.

Many cases of poor food hygiene and food adulteration are dealt with effectively by that route. The police would take the lead only if there were evidence of serious, organised criminality in the UK. The FSA identified that such criminality was potentially involved and last week alerted both the Metropolitan police and Europol. The FSA’s investigations are ongoing. The police are well aware of the developing situation, but at what point they take the lead is a judgment for them and the FSA, based on the evidence. It is not a decision for me or the shadow Secretary of State. We must respect the independence of the police.

The Opposition have made a great deal of the risks to consumers in Europe of horses slaughtered in the UK because of possible residues of the drug bute. In line with advice from the chief medical officer, the Government have tightened the system we inherited. Last week, we moved to 100% testing of horses slaughtered at abattoirs, and accelerated the rate at which tests can be completed. As of yesterday, no carcase will be released unless and until it has tested negative for bute. However, I remind the House that, to the extent that some carcases with bute residues may have in the past entered the human food chain in Europe, the chief medical officer’s advice is that, even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it will cause any harm to health.

The British food and farming industries are two of this country’s great success stories. I will not let them be talked down. The food industry has continued to grow during the current difficult economic conditions. Its export performance in particular has been strong. In 2010, the UK food and drink industry contributed £90 billion gross value to the economy, and in 2011 achieved exports worth £18.2 billion, of which meat and meat products accounted for £1.7 billion.

Food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, employing some 3.2 million people. Jobs in the UK depend in part on consumer confidence in processed meat products. That is why I have emphasised the importance of food businesses taking rapid steps to reassure consumers and overseas markets by testing all their processed beef products and making the results public. Transparency is key to confidence.

The Government will do whatever necessary to ensure that British farmers and food manufacturers have access to export markets. That includes ensuring that British food is recognised for its rigorous standards and traceability, and that our producers do not get a bad reputation owing to the Europe-wide horsemeat incidents—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was spot on in that respect.

The food industry also needs to look to the future and embrace new technologies.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State made the point yesterday that tracing processed meat products is a paper chase. I am keen that we have proper inspections of the meat and meat products that come into this country, so that we can see what is in the lorries, which is otherwise signed off when it comes into the UK.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I confirmed a few minutes ago that I am concerned that the problem is a paper-based system. The problem is that there is too much faith—the certificate and manifest on the content of pallets is taken on trust and there is not enough testing of the material. I will discuss that with Commissioner Borg tomorrow, as I discussed it yesterday and today with Lord Rooker. We agree we can improve on the current system within the current arrangements by introducing some form of testing regime. Lord Rooker had some interesting ideas on how we might do that. My favoured concept is a form of random testing, but he might be more systematic. There will be a lessons-learned exercise afterwards, which I am keen to push on with.

On new technologies, the UK Government invest more than £410 million annually in research in the agriculture, food and drink sector. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science on the agri-tech strategy. There is a lot that is positive that we can do and are doing to help the British food and farming sectors make the most of their excellent products and high standards. I think we are all agreed on the need to maintain confidence, and that is not helped by muddying the waters with misleading suggestions that the current investigations are not being pursued vigorously and seriously. From my exchanges with the FSA chairman and industry leaders, I know that this issue is being taken very seriously across the whole food chain. Of course, we shall look at the lessons to be learned from these problems once the immediate incidents have been resolved. As I have just said, I am convinced we have a system that involves too much trust in paper-based systems and we need to look at better testing of actual products.

My top priority in the coming days and weeks will be to back the FSA as it follows through its investigations, and to collaborate with European Ministers, the Commission and the UK food industry to root out unacceptable practices and to rebuild justified confidence in food, in support of consumers. Consumers must have confidence in the products that they buy for themselves and their families. We must all work together to ensure that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

I acknowledge that position, but my point is that given the traceability in the UK industry, the opportunity to change those labels is simply not there. Registered vets in every abattoir in the United Kingdom are watching the line and checking that the carcases are stamped and marked. They cannot be changed. When one buys what is basically a block of frozen meat from an international buyer, it is easy to pull off the label that says “beef” and slap on one that says something else, or reverse that process. That is a sad state of affairs.

Consumers want to know exactly what they are eating, but today we are in a position where I could set up my own little factory, buy in Brazilian chicken, make chicken pies in my kitchen, and sell them as Nottinghamshire chicken pie. We need to look more closely at the labelling process so that the industry tells consumers exactly what they are buying and where it has come from.

In the end, the consumer has the power and can choose where they source their products. They can choose to go to a supermarket or to a local, small and independent high-street butcher. They can shop around and make those decisions. I acknowledge that that becomes challenging right at the bottom, where people are struggling to make ends meet and to find the cash to buy those products. That is why we need a regulatory system that they can have confidence in, that they can support and that they acknowledge.

My final message is that this weekend, when people are thinking about what they want to have for dinner, they should go to their local butcher, look him in the eye and say, “Where has this animal come from? Tell me about it.” People will then be able to eat that dinner with confidence, knowing that they are buying good-quality, locally produced meat.

[Neil Parish]

(Tiverton and Honiton) rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say to Mr Parish that he has five minutes, as we have to start the wind ups at 20 minutes to 4?

[Neil Parish]

May I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate?

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who made some strong points about the traceability of the product in this country. From when animals are in the farmers’ field to the time they are slaughtered and processed, we know exactly where they have come from: the red tractor mark identifies farm assurance, giving us certainty that we are buying the right product and that it is beef.

I wish to say clearly to hon. Members that we have not suddenly got to this situation, as these things have been happening for years. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years, serving on its agriculture committee. Time and again, we said, “We want greater traceability. We want to be able to follow these products across Europe. We want to be confident that it is not just a paper trail and that we actually have physical inspection of this meat and meat product.” None of that has happened. If there is a silver lining to this situation, it is that it is a wake-up call. We can therefore make sure we put in place a process whereby we identify the product and consumers can be absolutely confident that they are buying beef and not horsemeat.

That leads me on to the fact that what has been happening is fraud—it is criminal activity—as we should be able to buy a beefburger in the shops, even a cheap one, and have confidence in it. We have talked a great deal about educating people on how to cook meat, and that is a great step forward, but we have reached a stage where, rightly or wrongly, many more people eat processed food. We in this Chamber are not going to roll that back, so when a consumer buys a beefburger, even a cheap one, he or she should be confident that it contains beef and not horse.

People no longer want to spend their time cooking the types of meat we have used over the years—the slow-roasting joints and so on—or perhaps they do not have the time available, so much of that meat and meat product can go into cheaper burgers. There is therefore no excuse for what has been happening. I say clearly, making the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood did, that in 1970 we were spending more than 30% of our income on food whereas the figure now is about 12%. Although the percentage of their income that people are spending on food has dropped dramatically, they should still be able confident of what they eat.

We expect the food industry to stand up and be counted, and to be certain that the product it is selling is exactly what it says it is. We have seen supermarkets use a great deal of muscle in the past, and they will do so again, to try to drive prices down. In many ways, one could argue that that is of great benefit to the consumer, but that is only if the consumer gets a product they can trust and be confident in. We must be careful of the day when we go against all processed food, because processed food is not necessarily bad for us. If it is processed in the way it should be and it contains what it says it should on the label, we can eat it with confidence. We can do that if we are eating British food produced under our farm assured system.

I look forward to what the Minister is going to say in reply, because we now need to ensure that we have confidence in our food industry. We need to bring in a food labelling system that will clearly identify the country of origin of the principal meat ingredients in a processed product, so that we know where they come from and so that if we are concerned that they have come from other parts of Europe or across the world where we do not have the same confidence in the food chain, we will not buy that product. At the moment, we have only “processed in the EU” and “processed in the UK”, and we do not know where the principal ingredients came from. I urge Ministers, when they go to Europe, to make sure that we finally get proper labelling, so we can identify where our food came from. We can then act much more quickly to bring criminals to book. That is what they are: criminals who have put the wrong meat in a burger, which may bring problems. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that inaccurate labelling is an offence. At the moment, we have to establish exactly what is in these materials and who is responsible for the label. In the Findus case, that material has been withdrawn.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

We have the red tractor and other farm assurance schemes that guarantee that meat from those sources is guaranteed through to processed product. May I urge the Secretary of State to urge people to eat that type of meat, which is completely traceable? Finally, Europe has been far too lax on this type of meat processing for many years, so we need a tightening up across the whole of Europe in order to know exactly what we are eating.

[Mr Paterson]

I am entirely happy to recommend to all consumers in this country that they buy good British products in which they can have faith. We have extraordinarily rigorous processes for traceability and production systems, so I have total confidence in British products and strongly recommend them to the British consumer.

European Pig Industry

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure, especially following our debate on Europe, to speak in an attempt to protect the British pig, a noble beast, from the depredations of the European Union.

On 1 January this year, a European directive, Council Directive 2008/120/EC, came into force throughout the EU. It lays down minimum standards and requirements for the welfare of pigs, and, most notably, outlaws the use of systems, known as stalls, which in fact confine sows in individual metal stalls. It was originally passed in 2001, and in this respect—as in so many areas of animal health and welfare—the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard.

The Minister is a former pig farmer, as is his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who is also present this evening. I only wish that I too had been a pig farmer: I should have liked that very much. My right hon. Friend and the Minister will know—as, indeed, will many other Members—that Parliament placed a complete ban on sow stalls in 1999, and that the United Kingdom had already achieved full compliance with the directive when it came into force this year. Unfortunately, however, that is not true of all member states.

In June 2012, the European Commission reported that 18 of the 27 member states expected to meet the January 2013 deadline for full compliance with the directive. Despite assurances given to the Commission, however, figures leaked from the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in December 2012 showed that 80% of member states were expected to fail to comply with the ban.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the debate, because I want to draw attention to a difficulty affecting Europe’s enforcement of the directive. One of the problems with EU legislation is that it is only when it has actually become law that the European Commission can take action. It should be able to take action before the event: that would enable the practice of keeping pigs in stalls to be stopped in Denmark and in all member states.

[Mr Bacon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this country, once the rules come into force on a given date—1 January 2013, in this instance—that should be it. There is a huge difference between our approach to the law, what we do with it and how we obey it, and the approach of many countries on the continent, where law and the making of law are more of an aspiration than a statement of what is and how things should be. I do not want to dwell on that point too much, because it is outside the terms of the debate, but I think that it highlights one of the fundamental differences between us and many European countries, which makes the melding of our countries—should we wish it, which we do not—almost impossible.

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As I have already said, I do not accept that there is any difficulty with split responsibilities. The responsibility for food safety lies entirely with the Food Standards Agency.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

In this country, there are robust rules to separate the processing of beef and horse meat. Is that not the case in Ireland?

[Mr Heath]

That will be the subject of the investigations being carried out. The low-level contamination suggests that it may not have been through deliberate falsification of labelling. It may well be that it is simply cross-contamination by error, but I am sure that the Irish authorities will look carefully at this. We are co-operating with them as far as we can, and we are very eager to know the answer.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for introducing it. It is an opportune moment for us to debate live exports and, in particular, the methods used.

If we look at the number of animals that travel in and out of this country, we see that 85% of the trade is between Ireland and ourselves, so the idea that we are going to ban the live export of animals is unfeasible—it would be impossible. Furthermore, many of those animals may be intended for further fattening or breeding. It is therefore absolutely necessary for the farming community to be able to trade properly, not only with Ireland but with the rest of Europe, because, for the time being at least, we work within a single European market and expect to be able to trade as such.

Let me pinpoint what happened in Ramsgate, where 40 or 50 sheep were unloaded on to the dockside with no way of containing them. Those of us who have reared sheep know very well that, certainly without a dog or any sort of enclosure, the idea of allowing those sheep off the lorry was, to be candid, madness, because all it would do is cause a huge problem, and that is what ensued.

We need to have a system whereby proper investigations can be performed. The Minister has said that animals need to be inspected properly when they go on to the lorry, and that is fundamental. Then, if there is a problem when they get to the port, wherever it is, there needs to be some form of lairage not too far away so that if there is an emergency the animals can be unloaded and looked after properly. It is possible to take animals on journeys and look after them well. Racehorses are taken all over the world, but of course they go first class, whereas not all the animals we are discussing are going first class; I very much accept that.

Another aspect is the type of lorries that are used, which must be the proper type for the species they are transporting. When I was in the European Parliament, I did a lot of work on the transportation of horses, which requires specialist vehicles. We need the right vehicles and the right number of animals on the vehicles so that they are not overcrowded. At times of the year when it is particularly hot and the animals are reasonably crowded on the lorry, there must be proper ventilation, and sometimes refrigeration, to be able to get cold air into it. As I said, the trade is essential, but it has to observe the very best rules. We need to get the situation regarding the lorries right and get the inspections correct, and we need to be sure that, if there is an emergency, when the lorries get to the port there are the means to unload the animals carefully and to handle them properly. If we do all that, then much of what went on at Ramsgate can be put right.

Perhaps the industry needs to think about concentrating exports in particular places so that they can provide the best facilities. I think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) used the word “ramshackle”. That is an interesting word, but I do not necessarily disagree with him. We cannot allow this sort of thing to happen, and I know that the Minister is very conscious of that. The public out there are supportive of agriculture and farming, but they are also very keen on animal welfare, and it is therefore in our interest to make sure that animals are treated very well. From an economic point of view, we want them to travel well and to be unloaded at the other end in good condition, or what is the purpose of transporting them in the first place?

I think we are getting carried away about distances. The driving distance from Land’s End to John O’Groat’s is, I think, a little more than 900 miles—it is nearly, but not quite, 1,000 miles. The distance between Dover and Calais is 22 miles, so as long as an export system does not take animals on long journeys, it is possible to cross either the English channel or the Irish sea without too many problems. Again, it has to be ensured that the ferries are fit for purpose and that everything works, because I think that the public demand it. The industry and farmers are conscious of that and know that it is part of the trade.

We have to put the percentage of trade in perspective. Live export, especially that for slaughter, amounts to probably only 1% or 2% of the overall market, so huge numbers of sheep and cattle are being slaughtered in this country and then exported as meat. Let us be absolutely clear that that is our preferred position. We must have the ability to take those animals to be traded as meat or to be further fattened.

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend and I met the English Beef and Lamb Executive this morning, and I pay tribute to it for its wonderful work in promoting English lamb, particularly Agneau St George, and to Hybu Cig Cymru for promoting Welsh lamb.

[Roger Williams]

There must be similar organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These organisations do wonderful work in promoting the sale of meat and in getting it to be accepted and appreciated in other countries.

[Neil Parish]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about EBLEX, which is doing a good job in promoting our lamb and beef abroad. On this occasion, I will be magnanimous and say that Welsh lamb, Scottish lamb, English lamb and west country lamb are all wonderful. I will not tell Members which one I think is the best, but they will probably have a fairly good idea.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The west country is in England!

[Neil Parish]

Parts of the west country are in England, but I will not enter into that debate this afternoon.

It is essential for us to deal with the issue in a grown-up manner. I thank the Minister for the steps he has already taken and look forward to hearing his winding-up speech. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has said, perhaps there is now a case for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to look at the issue, in order to see exactly how the trade is being conducted, to make sure that the rules are in place and to double-check whether the lorries, other vehicles and all those involved are operating it correctly.

If sheep or cattle that are not lame or ill, which is exactly as they should be, are loaded on to and transported in the right type of lorry, they should get to their destination in France, Ireland or wherever it be—that is a Somerset expression—in good condition, and that is what the industry wants. I reinforce the point that it is not in the interests of the farming community or those carrying out the trade to take an animal across in poor condition.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be appropriate for our Committee to look at the conditions, such as handling facilities, when the animals arrive at their destination? Given the growth of super-abattoirs as the industry consolidates, we need to look carefully at that part of the journey.

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—we could look at all of that. One of the issues that I have spent a lot of time on, although it is probably not on the agenda for this debate, is the way in which the animals are slaughtered. That is a slightly more controversial issue, but it needs to be dealt with so that they are properly stunned when it comes to slaughter.

The hon. Gentleman proposes a good idea. There are European regulations and, having experienced the work of all the other 27—now to be 28—member states, I can assure Members that, on the whole, Britain’s methods and inspections of transport are good. That is not to say that we always get everything right but, compared with many member states, our methods are good. We should not beat ourselves up on this issue, but we need to get it right. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet is concerned, and rightly so, about what happened with the Ramsgate shipment and the slaughter of animals on the quayside. There will be a proper inquiry into that and the situation needs to be put right. As I have said, I am certain, in hindsight, that the same action would not be taken again.

I welcome this debate and reinforce points that have been made by Members of all parties. I do not believe that this is a party political matter. It is a matter of trading properly through the single market and under good conditions, including for welfare, so that the public are assured that our farming community and those involved in the export trade are operating it properly and that the animals get to their destination in good condition.