Food Fraud

Debate between David Simpson and David Heath

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I see no reason to compromise on high standards of quality. There are areas that I think we can quite properly discuss with the United States in which the answer is labelling and letting consumers make the choice rather than simply having bans. Some of the areas the hon. Gentleman mentions fall into that category; others do not. I have no interest in hormone treatments being used in this country and think that it would be a very great shame if that were standard practice in our dairy herds. We have been down that road before; I remember having exactly that conversation 30 years ago when I was leader of the county council and American Pharmaceuticals proposed to bring in bovine somatotropin to increase yield in our dairy herds. As a Somerset representative, I would say that we simply do not want that. It will be bad for our cattle and for their welfare and it will also be bad for the industry as regards consumer acceptance of a very wholesome product. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.

[David Simpson]

I neglected to apologise for my late arrival when I intervened earlier, so if I was repetitive I apologise. A number of the complaints I received in my constituency from commercial companies concerned the fact that although we welcome an open border policy for free trade within the European Union, it has its downside as regards free movement, and there were not the border checks that there should have been. There is paperwork, and we can do many things with that, but there are not the necessary physical checks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard that complaint when he was a Minister.

[Mr Heath]

I did hear that complaint and I must say that what was coming into our ports from outside the EU was a great concern of mine. I do not think sufficient precautions were in place, although they have improved since. Within the EU, although there were theoretical paper trails, when they were examined in the context of the horsemeat scandal they were found to be relatively easy to falsify. That cannot be acceptable and we need co-operation on that between member states.

The paramount responsibility of the Food Standards Agency and of Government is to maintain the safety of food. I do not want anything to be done in terms of the composition that takes away from the primary responsibility of ensuring that when consumers eat something, they are safe from infection or poisoning. That is not to say that composition is unimportant. It gives consumers something other than what they think they have bought. As we have heard, for some communities that is of very great significance, particularly those that have religious requirements about what they eat, but everybody is entitled to be sold what they think they are buying according to the label that the product bears. If people are deliberately setting out to sell something other than that, there is a very simple word for it, and that is fraud. The title of today’s debate is “Food Fraud” and the significant point is the fraud, not the food. It is a crime, and one that needs to be treated as serious. We need the apparatus to ensure that we interdict when it comes into the country and that we ensure prosecution when people involved are in this country.

Planning Reform

Debate between David Simpson and David Heath

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

I will be touching on five-year supply in a moment, because it is critical to what is happening.

Let me say a little more about Norton St Philip. Under the new Mendip plan, it has been classified as a “primary village”, and along with that goes a requirement for 70 new homes. That is predicated on the newly reopened shop and post office. Without that shop and post office, Norton St Philip would revert to being a secondary village, with a requirement for 40 new houses. Setting that aside, what has happened already is 73 new houses. The applications before the planning authority provide for a further 223 houses in that small village. In other words, were those applications to be approved, the size of the village would be doubled, without any improvement to the infrastructure, and, needless to say, the character of the village would be hugely changed in the process.

I am particularly exercised by one of the applications, although I know that Members of Parliament should always be cautious about getting involved with local planning decisions. Nevertheless, to build on what is called Great Orchard, which is the site of the battle of Philip’s Norton, the skirmish during the rebellion, seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition. It is deep within the heart of the conservation area of the village and would put at risk some 200 metres of the finest dry stone wall to be seen in Britain. I apologise to hon. Members if I am exercising my Baedeker view of my constituency, but it is vital to understand that the village is an important and historic settlement. I cannot see the circumstances in which such a proposition would be approved, and of course it was not—it was not approved in the local plan and was not part of what was reserved for development.

People in the village are perfectly happy to ensure that the building that is already taking place and that which is projected in sensible places go ahead. They are not averse to development in the village. However, they do not want their village destroyed. That is a perfectly proper proposition.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this important debate. Does he agree that one of the major problems with planning—it has been for many years—is inconsistency? One council area will approve one thing; the neighbouring council area will not approve it. There needs to be flexibility, especially with town centre developments. If we are to regenerate our town centres, we need that flexibility, but inconsistency in planning has been a problem for many years.

[Mr Heath]

I agree that we need flexibility, and that is better determined by local people understanding local needs, rather than by an inspector in a planning department—in Bristol in our case—determining a case on the basis of rules derived from Whitehall. Local people should determine what is best for their area.