Antibiotics (Intensive Farms)

Debate between Anne Main and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

The difficulty is that it is very hard to measure antibiotic use in extensive farming of the sort that my hon. Friend describes, whereas in organic farming there is quite clear regulation—self-regulation, in effect—which enables that comparison to be made. He is probably right, but I cannot authenticate what he says, because the data simply do not exist.

The second BPC quote that I read out cannot be true. The BPC must be aware of DEFRA’s statement last year that as many ESBLs were found in chickens in the first half of last year than in the entire previous year, so what it has said to me in its briefing simply is not true.

The BPC also says:

“Antibiotics may only be used on a farm if they have been prescribed by a veterinary surgeon”.

But it knows that producers often go straight to the feed mill, which will write out the prescription, send it to the vet’s at the eleventh hour and put pressure on them to sign it immediately. We know that because a number of vets have complained to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate about just that.

Finally, the BPC says:

“Scientific evidence increasingly recognises that the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans comes largely from the use of antibiotics in human medicine.”

That is true, as I have already acknowledged, but for certain bacteria—salmonella, campylobacter and E. coli—the farm use probably accounts for more than half the problem. It certainly accounts for a very significant chunk of the problem. With MRSA, it is probably accounting at the moment for only a few per cent. of cases, but if it is allowed to get established in UK livestock, that situation could very easily change, and dramatically.

The briefing adds, approvingly, that the use of growth-promoting antibiotics was banned 10 years ago in this country. It is probably worth pointing out that that ban came into force only in 2006 and was vigorously opposed by the BPC at the time. Perhaps for that reason, the British Government of the time, initially at least, was the only EU member state Government to oppose the ban. That is another example, I would suggest, of the industry calling the shots on this issue.

I must acknowledge that, 12 months ago, the BPC agreed to introduce a voluntary ban on the use of cephalosporins in poultry production and to stop giving fluoroquinolones to day-old chicks. That does not go nearly far enough, but it is an important step forward and demonstrates an acknowledgment by the BPC, albeit a reluctant one, of the problem.

There is no excuse to delay. The warning has been there since 1945, when, on accepting his part of the Nobel prize in medicine for the discovery and isolation of penicillin, Alexander Fleming said that

“there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to non-lethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.”

If we continue to ignore this risk for fear of upsetting vested interests, we will be complicit in robbing future generations of one of the great discoveries of our species and propelling us—apologies for repeating myself—into a truly frightening, post-antibiotic age. It is surely time for the Government to act.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

For clarification to those participating in the debate, it will finish at 5.10 pm.

European Union Bill

Debate between Anne Main and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I want to start simply by saying that I love Europe. I have countless brothers and sisters—I have lost track of how many—dotted throughout Europe, and probably many whom I have not yet met, for whom English is a second language. I therefore have to love Europe. There are even aspects of the European Union that in my view are very important. Without a doubt, some issues and problems are best addressed through co-operation, not least climate change and other environmental concerns, which ignore national borders. Addressing those problems has never required and does not require the creation of a pan-European superstate. There is no doubt that that is where we are heading. To take just one example, 80% of the business of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is now determined at EU level.

There are two key problems with that extraordinary shift. The first is that the EU has too many conflicting styles of government for it to work effectively. An exasperated former Environment Minister complained:

“In one Member State, everything is permitted unless it’s forbidden. In another Member State everything is forbidden unless it’s permitted. And in some Member States everything is permitted—especially if it’s forbidden”.

When I think of this country’s appalling habit of gold-plating even the most awkward and damaging regulations, I occasionally wish that we formed part of the latter group.

There is a much bigger problem. Of all the major changes that have occurred in Britain’s history, the EU project is surely among the most significant. We have seen major steps towards the formation of a single European Government, who now have more powers than our own. That has happened with virtually no consultation. I ask passionate supporters of the EU, those who are absolutely wedded to continued integration, what they will do if ever the EU moves in a direction that they no longer approve of. The answer is that because EU decision makers are, on the whole, thoroughly insulated from proper democratic pressure, there is very little that they will be able to do. That point is fundamental. The ability to rid ourselves of unpopular politicians and regimes is the single most important ingredient in any democracy. On that basis, the EU is simply not democratic. How many people in this country genuinely believe that the vote they cast in a European election will make the slightest bit of difference to how Europe is governed?

We have a brilliant new fisheries Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is determined to reform the common fisheries policy. Like any normal person, he is appalled that nearly half the fish that we catch in the North sea are thrown back dead or dying as a result of nonsensical laws on quotas. How many hon. Members believe that he will be able to change those laws, even with the support of this House, when he negotiates them later this month?

It is no wonder that the percentage of British people who believe that our membership of the EU is a good thing has, according to recent surveys, fallen to just 31%. It is no wonder that we have seen the rejection of treaties by the French, the Dutch, the Danes and the Irish, all of whom were ignored disgracefully by their Governments and the European Union. It is no wonder that we have seen a continent-wide decline in turnout in the European parliamentary elections from 62% in 1979 to 43% last year.

It is not only time for a referendum lock on the further loss of sovereignty, but for a national debate about the repatriation of key powers to this country, followed by a referendum to legitimise those reforms. I believe that without radical reform of the European Union, that institution will not survive. Passionate supporters of the EU should embrace the need for reform, for without it, the institution that they support will not exist in the future. A referendum lock alone is not enough, and if we are honest, it is not even on the cards. The judgment as to whether a treaty or treaty change meets the criteria for triggering a referendum will rely on the subjective opinion of a Minister and it will be for the Government to adjudicate whether a change represents a transfer of power and a loss of sovereignty. Is that really an adequate safeguard?

Almost every successful candidate in the 2005 election was elected on a manifesto that promised a referendum on the EU constitution, but there never was such a referendum, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members. We were denied one because, when the constitution was re-edited, repackaged and re-presented following popular rejection, it was cynically declared by a Minister to be merely an anodyne tidying-up exercise. That was a ridiculous claim that was denied even by the authors of the constitution.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, and I agree with an awful lot of what he has said. As a Member who was elected in 2005, it is that concept of anodyne tidying-up that worries the hell out of me in this Bill. It says that if something is only tidying-up, it does not need to come before Parliament. It was the tidying-up in the last treaty that the Conservative party objected to so much. I do not feel that I can support the Bill tonight. I hope that it will come back in a much better state on Third Reading, but I am not hopeful.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I wish to quote—excuse the pronunciation—Charles, Comte de Talleyrand, who once said of an unknown acquaintance:

“In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily.”

By that logic no one can ever accuse Britain of being a flirt, because we have yielded at every single opportunity, as my hon. Friend has just reminded the House. I have just one question for the Minister. What guarantee—not assurance—can he provide that this Bill will prevent such a thing from ever happening again?