Recreational Sea Bass Fishing

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Scott Mann]

I was not aware of that, and I thank the hon. Lady for making those points. I want to talk about some of the EU changes. I welcome the ban on French pair trawlers between January and April. They account for about a third of the bass taken in British waters, and many of the bass that they catch are spawning fish. Taking large spawning fish out of the ecosystem means there are no smaller fish to grow and become bigger fish. In the EU changes, we should be talking about reclaiming our territorial waters. The EU holds the common fisheries policy up as a shining example of joined-up thinking, but I am yet to find a commercial fisherman or a recreational sea angler who believes that the CFP is a good thing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be drawn into intervening by the hon. Gentleman. May I draw his attention to a 3-inch piece in a right-hand column in The Times about six months ago—a tiny little thing—which reported that the long-running battle to replenish cod in the North sea was being won? Cod stocks are growing bigger, as we can read in the press again today. North sea cod has been replenished because instead of cod wars we have agreements based on science to replenish the stocks. Those agreements are working.

[Scott Mann]

I will try to check out that column in The Times. It is not my regular newspaper—I normally read The Telegraph and The Sun—but I will go back and check it. Such agreements may be fine in other waters, but we should have an understanding that our territorial waters inside the 6-mile limit should be protected for our fisheries and our people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cox]

I do agree. The policy is crazy, and Ministers know it. They wrestle with their consciences, they feel guilty and they try to push the envelope for the inshore fleet, but they know that the situation is untenable. They know that decent men and women with livelihoods to protect cannot go to sea for more than a few days a year and cannot cover their costs. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). Of course the position is crazy. It is an insane policy.

Of course the rod-and-line sea anglers must feel a sense of injustice. It is a direct and perverse consequence of a failed policy. That is the difficulty. How do I go back to Bideford and Appledore and say to my fishermen, “There’s nothing for you to catch”? Catching small-eyed ray, the last thing on which they depended, was banned in December. Why do we think my hon. Friend the Minister came back with derogations for gillnetting? It was because he knew that the small-eyed ray was banned, which meant 40% of the northern Devon fishing industry cut at a slice. Was there any consultation on that ban? No. Was there any warning? No.

The real injustice is the whole failed policy. It is time we got out of it. The people of this country will have the chance to withdraw us from it in just a few months. Then we can have a properly managed fishery in which the rod-and-line men and the sea anglers can be treated properly, and the inshore fleet, on which traditional coastal communities depend, can breathe again when we introduce common sense back into the counsels of our fishing policy.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Cox]

No, I am not listening to a former Minister who presided over this policy and went cap in hand to Brussels begging for scraps. It is time we took back our fisheries policy. That will bring justice to the people my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall spoke for and to the decent men and women who have nothing to fish for in the north Devon fishery.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! What are the Government doing risking Europe’s sea bass for their foolish, unfair, ineffective and fishy decision on sea bass fishing? Members might ask what I am doing here out of my darkened room—it is nothing to do with defence; I do not eat fish; and I am not an angler. Thanks to 40 years of living with an ecologist, however, I know an environmental disaster when I see one.

I have constituents who are sea anglers who came to my surgery and asked me to take an interest in sea bass fishing. Unfortunately for me, I happen to know the former Member for Reading, and when someone knows the former Member for Reading, it is very dangerous to ask him, “What is the issue about sea bass fishing?” because he will tell them.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

You shouldn’t have done that!

[Mrs Moon]

I appreciate the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—I should never have done it, but my constituents wanted to know, so I wanted to know, and thus I am here today. I am also a Member who has a coastal resort, in which sea bass fishing was a very popular activity, so I started looking at the facts.

Everywhere I looked, it was very clear that there was an urgent need to rebuild bass stocks—and nobody seems to dispute that. It is the core bottom line. It is an environmental and economic imperative, and everybody will agree on that. We know this because in 2014, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality across the EU area for 2015, following a rise in bass landings from 772 tonnes to 1,004 tonnes. We were taking more out of the sea than was sustainable. The bass stock in the North Atlantic fishery is 527 tonnes—well below the trigger point of concern for the exploration of the seas, which was set at 8,000 tonnes. Future regenerations of sea bass stocks are now in danger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I will try to be quick so that others can speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope Members will understand if I do not take interventions. I have been tempted into making some points. There have been some very good speeches by Members who know a lot more about the fishing industry than I do, but my opening point is that the Europe issue is a red herring.

Even if we had control of our own waters, we would have to have the right conservation measures to balance conservation with the survival of fisheries. We would have to do that come what may. I alluded earlier to North sea cod. Even if we had not been part of the common fisheries policy, and even if I had not been the Minister who started the trend for bringing back devolution of decision making on the North sea alongside Scottish colleagues and others, we would still have had to have made that decision for the good of our fisheries in the long term. We need the focus to be on the conservation of stocks, which is, ultimately, good for recreational fishermen and commercial fisheries.

The Minister has a very difficult task. When he goes to Brussels, he argues for the UK—it is not as though we do not have a voice, and he is there alongside colleagues from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—and he has to do a difficult thing: he has to represent fishing communities while taking account of the science. Yes, I understand that that is difficult, but my question to the Minister is why is the decision on bass such a departure from the science? That is the fundamental question. I understand the difficulties he has when he goes to Europe, but there is such a difference between what ICES and the science clearly says—science is never perfect, but it is pretty good to go on—and what the Government have come up with. That is what we need to hear today. This issue is not between recreational anglers and commercial fisheries—or it should not be, although sometimes it seems to descend into that—but about the balance between using the science effectively in negotiations and keeping the fisheries alive.

The fundamental question in my very short contribution is this: why is there a chasm between the science and the final outcome of the December fisheries negotiations on bass? The joy of the North sea cod result was that we had to strike a balance for more than a decade and we did it. Yes, fishermen were not happy, but they are a lot happier now that the cod is recovering and that they have bigger fish to land in their vessels. We need to do the same with bass and all other species as well.

The question that I leave the Minister is this: why is there such a gap? I have experienced the difficulties of fisheries negotiations, but he must understand that there is a chasm between what the science was telling him and the outcome. Is it because there was a huge pressure from the fisheries communities and the Minister gave way? I have certainly been faced with the situation in which we almost had to close fisheries off the west of Scotland and off north-east Ireland. We managed to pull away from that, but it was difficult. There is such a chasm now that I must ask whether the Minister has just dispelled the science and let rip.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

As someone who is not the fisheries Minister and whose constituency is stuck on the top of a mountain, I feel I am being drawn from my native rivers and well out from the pelagic realms into very deep water. My main responsibility has been to listen very carefully to this highly intelligent and serious debate. I will communicate all the arguments that have been made to the fisheries Minister and I will make sure that DEFRA takes them into account, responds to them in detail and takes action.

In the seven minutes I have left, it will not be possible for me to do full justice to all the speeches and interventions. May I say, however, that it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate? One of the most striking things about it, as one can see in the Chamber, is the great strength, good humour and, indeed, good looks of anglers. I have been very struck by the sense of generally energetic, tanned men, such as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is looking cheerful and bouncy. I have a general sense that this sport brings out a stress-free, cheerful life, and that it is to be praised. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) also contributed to the debate in an intervention.

As someone who is new to the debate about sea bass, it is striking that it is bringing to the surface the very serious tension between EU fisheries policy and UK policy, and between the interests of anglers and the interests of commercial fishermen. Navigating our way through that is quite tough. Very strong statements were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who particularly stressed her family connection with commercial fishing, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who took us all the way back to medieval abbots, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), whose speech was perhaps more suitable for mobilising a brigade for war than for a technical discussion of maximum sustainable yields.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) made us think about the role of aquaculture in relation to sea bass. One reason why sea bass is a very striking fish is that it is, or so it seems to an outsider, the next salmon—the next great challenge we face in the debate in the United Kingdom. It is clearly an unusual fish, as people found when they developed aquaculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It struggles to get out of the microscopic eggs, it produces juveniles that have difficulty in tracking down their prey, and it has to create its air sack by rising to the surface and filling it with an oxygen bubble. In fact, the species suffered what was essentially an extinction event in the Mediterranean. We are now talking about the north-east Atlantic, but the Mediterranean sea bass was in effect eliminated during the 1960s and 1970s. Most of its presence there now appears to be related to farmed sea bass that have escaped.

That is why the challenge that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made to us to focus hard on the science is so important. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) focused on biomass, particularly breeding or spawning biomass, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) focused on landings. The shadow Secretary of State pointed to the issues around tonnage and black fish, particularly the landing of 1,100 tonnes in 2014.

This is a serious subject and the science is at the core of the debate. It does not matter whether we are talking to commercial fishermen or the angling community: the question is: what is the state of sea bass? Of course, sea bass has been on an extraordinary rollercoaster since the early 1980s. We went from minimal tonnage to a single spike year in the 1980s in which we hit nearly 13 million tonnes of biomass. Very warm conditions seem to have created an enormous number of sea bass. Along with changes in our eating patterns, that created the phenomenon, which did not really exist before the 1980s, of commercial fleets going into the Atlantic after sea bass to feed these new tastes. A series of cold winters from 2009 onwards appear to have led to a serious problem in new juvenile production, when combined with the large levels of catching, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out.

The best analysis that we can currently reach on the subject comes from ICES. We believe that we are catching about 5,000 tonnes and that that is about 30% of an 18,000 tonne biomass. However, if we look at breeding biomass, the figures appear to be lower. I see the hon. Member for Ogmore is looking at a piece of paper. Does he want me to give way briefly?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for a very detailed answer, which is focused on the science. The ICES evidence points to the necessity of an 80% cutback in the year ahead and a 90% cutback after that. Those cuts are massive and stringent. Will the Minister respond to the suggestion that we will actually be looking at about 20%? Is that accurate?

[Rory Stewart]

I notice that since the emergency of Daesh, people have really struggled to pronounce ICES. It is causing more and more of a problem. Foreign affairs and defence appear to be entering into fishing debates.

To answer the hon. Gentleman, the 80% reduction is a reduction from a current maximum sustainable yield, which we believe to be about 13%—that is the best science—from the current catch rates and landings, which seem to be striking at about 30%. The question clearly is whether the measures taken in December Council will achieve those targets. I will come on to that now.

The key thing is that most of us in this Chamber agree that we need a solution—in fact, everybody in the Chamber probably agrees that we need a solution—that achieves a healthy bass stock. Again, I am very much not speaking as an expert, as this is outside my field. The measures that were taken at the Council were, broadly speaking, steps in the right direction. I think hon. Members would agree with that. The most important actions that were taken—this relates to the question from the hon. Member for Ogmore about the 80% reduction—were those that related to the pelagic fleet. In particular, the measures on drift netting—not on fixed gillnets, but on drift netting in general—were important, especially in relation to pair trawlers.

One debate in this House is about what kind of impact those measures will have. Will they reduce by 70% or even more the amount that is caught, as one would hope, or does more need to be done? I think that we would also embrace the move from 36 cm to 42 cm. The reason for that, which I do not need to point out to the House, is that we will get more spawning stock because the animals will get to a greater age.

Flooding

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

In response to my hon. Friend’s question, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), that scheme is very much on track and we are absolutely committed to it.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The focus, understandably, has to be on how to make good the damage to lives and livelihoods. However, the Secretary of State mentioned Dieter Helm and his work. He said today:

“The most important single step to be taken now is an explicit recognition that the status quo is not only unsustainable, but is never likely to be sustainable. The worst reaction”—

to the current floods crisis—

“would be more of the same.”

Will she take on board the lessons that Dieter is suggesting, including the need to look at rivers as national infrastructure and to have genuine water catchment management, including land use modifications where appropriate? How deep will she go in her thinking about a radical review of the approach to flooding?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Dieter’s appointment was made mid-December, so we are currently working on the committee’s terms of reference for the next five years. Combining this with our 25-year plan for the environment, and making sure we are looking at things on the basis of river basins and water catchment, is a great priority. We need to spend Government money more effectively. We need to understand better the interactions between our environmental measures, flood risk and flood management. That is very important. This is not something that can be achieved overnight. It takes thinking over a number of years. Planting trees and putting in upstream measures takes time. Building up flood defences takes time. That is why it is also important that we have a very strong emergency response effort. We are thinking about those things for the long term, which is why we set out, for the first time ever, a six-year plan for flood defences. It is why we are working on a 25-year environment plan, so that that is in place for the future.

Climate Change and Flooding

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I accept that nuclear is part of the mix—that is our policy—but it is not the only solution to green energy in this country, which seems to be the Government’s point of view.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Whatever the solutions, one of the key conclusions from COP 21 is that, in order to drive down from 3.5° to 2.7°, 2° or 1.5°, the UK will have to reset its rest—as it has been phrased. We need to do more faster and with greater urgency, and that is exactly what Lord Deben and the CCC have said. Does she agree that, whatever the solutions, one of the most important things is for the Government to accept the fifth carbon budget and narrow the gap with the fourth carbon budget?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is almost a consensus that the UK needs to do more, go faster and introduce stronger targets.

Business needs certainty, but people in Cumbria and other flood zones need it too. Last week, I visited Carlisle and Cockermouth with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We are grateful to the councillors, business owners and residents who showed us around their communities and homes, and we left impressed by their resilience and determined that the Government must do all they can to rebuild their communities and reduce their future flood risk. They should never have to go through this again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, following as it does the excellent news from Paris and the rather more depressing news of recent flooding.

I have just lost two of my favourite Ministers from the Front Bench—although they are staying for a moment—but I have another still on the Front Bench. I am delighted to have their temporary audience. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I congratulate our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on her part in helping to deliver a deal in Paris. Colleagues across the Chamber will doubtless debate how important and how effective that deal is and how it contrasts with Copenhagen, from which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) bears such scars. Despite much of the detail being left for future work, I think we have a framework from Paris which can give us hope for the future. The intended nationally determined contributions provide the building blocks with which we can go forward. We have in place in the agreement the promise of not only a stocktake, but a review and, we hope, a growth in ambition over time.

Following Paris, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has two things to do. One is to ensure that UK decarbonisation proceeds within the framework provided by the Climate Change Act 2008 and the fourth and fifth carbon budgets—our most current—which have been produced by the Climate Change Committee. We have not always got it all right. For instance, in the case of onshore wind, which is the lowest cost form of renewable energy that we have, there was a misdiagnosis of the problem.

The diagnosis of the problem, which people like me helped to provide over many years on behalf of our constituents, was that our constituents did not like having onshore wind turbines foisted on them, their local councillors ignored and a distant inspectorate insisting on them being built, resulting in our constituents losing any sense of control over the local environment. What local people wanted was to have control over their local environment. In those areas where there was least opposition, or where the recompense was adequate, onshore wind turbines should be allowed, but where local people were set on not having them, they should not go ahead.

That was a mistake that Labour made in government. With various Ministers in place I tried to get them to see that we would ultimately end up with more if we went with the grain of local opinion rather than trying to fight against it, but inevitably those whose local environment would be dominated by those constructions and who had had no say on it would find a political voice and eventually bring the scheme to a halt. We would end up with fewer, rather than more, wind turbines. So it has proved.

The misdiagnosis lay in the fact that my party came to the conclusion that the difficulty was not the planning, but the subsidy, even though it is the lowest subsidy of any form of renewable energy. So we got to the bizarre situation where there is no subsidy for the cheapest form of renewable energy, at the same time as we talk about lowering costs to consumers. We should have removed the right to appeal to the inspectorate and allowed the developers to provide packages which won support in certain parts of the country. Personally, I felt that we would have ended up with more, but somehow we have ended up with the cheapest form of renewable energy in effect receiving no support, which is a bizarre outcome. We do not want to make further such mis-steps.

On the positive side, in my local area we have offshore wind. By next year we should have 6 GW of offshore wind in this country, more than the rest of the world combined. By 2020 we should have 10 GW and, as the Secretary of State laid out recently, as did the Chancellor in the autumn statement, there is every hope that we will see a doubling of that between 2020 and 2030. So we are making significant progress in offshore wind, and it is only because of the pipeline that we have seen the supply chain and manufacturers able to invest and lower cost.

The big task for the Secretary of State is to work out how we are going to deliver decarbonisation of the UK economy at the lowest possible cost. It became apparent to me 10 years ago at the Montreal COP—conference of the parties—that we had to get the costs down. Sadly, hand-wringing environmental concern is not widely shared among the general populace of this country, among parliamentarians or across the world. We need to get the costs down so that it becomes more politically acceptable to people to do that which is compatible with tackling the risks suggested by the science.

My advice to the Secretary of State is that in every decision she makes in this area, she needs to think about creating a framework which encourages that investment. The state is only a relatively small player. Sometimes Ministers of successive Governments in this country talk as if the state is the key driver. The state is not the key driver; it is a small player. We create the framework, then we get the investment. It is that investment in solar by private companies in China and elsewhere, partly driven by the German market, that has led to the massive reduction in costs for solar. It has been the private sector investment, with the help of the Green Investment Bank, which has helped accelerate the cost curve downwards for offshore wind. That is what we must do—create a consistent environment.

There was a lot of positive rhetoric under the Labour Government about tackling climate change, but remarkably little action. In the end, in 2010, there had not been the progress that we should have seen. In the United States, by comparison, the rhetoric has always been negative but the policy environment for investment has been more positive. That is why there has been a great deal of investment in the United States, as well as more innovation and more jobs created than in this country, even though we, through the Climate Change Act and other things, have tried to be, and appeared to be, world leaders.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman’s comments pass without intervening, but I will try to say this on a cross-party basis. The success in offshore wind, which is now quite remarkable and we need to keep it going, was built on the back of the pipeline that was set up during the period of a Labour Government. That Government—I was an Environment Minister at the time—put in place things such as the £60 million investment in the ports facilities that is now allowing Siemens to carry out manufacturing in this country, and gave the go-ahead for the licensing.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make those points. Quite a lot of the progress that has been made in the past five or six years was built on that, but in the 13 years of Labour Government remarkably little progress was made. If we compare the investment environment in renewable and other green technologies in the United States, despite all the negative rhetoric, with the investment there has been in this country, we do not come out all that strongly.

The second challenge that faces the Government, after UK decarbonisation, is helping others to fulfil their national contributions to the INDCs and to build confidence at each national level to go further. Thus, when we have the review in five years’ time, we will be able to raise the ambition so that we are not heading, as now, for under 3°, but are genuinely able to head for a sub-2° world. There is a tremendous amount to be done in engaging with parliamentarians. I should declare an interest as the chair of GLOBE International. Colleagues from across the Chamber attended the summit of legislators in Paris the weekend before last. We need to engage more with parliamentarians. That is equally true in Parliaments such as ours where, despite today’s attendance, there are remarkably few colleagues with much interest in or knowledge of the subject matter. We have to engage more people so that they take more interest and ensure that we get the frameworks that deliver the investment. There is a huge role for the UK to play in developing countries through climate diplomacy and work with GLOBE and others to make sure that we engage with these parliamentarians, who, after all, pass the laws, set the budgets, and hold Governments to account. That is certainly what GLOBE aims to do through its chapters around the world.

I want briefly to say something about flooding, following my earlier intervention on the Environment Secretary. The threat to the Humber is real and growing, with rising sea levels. Last December, we saw a bigger surge than in 1953. If the wind direction and other factors had been slightly different, there would almost certainly have been loss of life. This is a growing issue and we need to find a long-term solution. My personal thought is if we leave it to Governments, who have to decide between investment in schools, hospitals and so on, and long-term investment in flooding, they always have a tendency, when not under the shadow of a recent flooding disaster, to cut back that long-term investment. Would it not be better to set a regulatory standard on which we could rely by handing it over to water companies, whose job is to borrow money from the international markets and invest for the long term at the lowest possible cost, to deliver an agreed standard? If we had a statutory standard with a duty placed on those bodies to deliver, and all the water tax payers of the country picking it up, we would not only save the Chancellor from the cost hitting the Exchequer directly, but could have in place lower-cost intervention, to an agreed standard, for the long term, and stop having these fervent and heated debates every time we have a flood disaster, which, given climate change, is likely to happen more often in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), who is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee.

I will take leadership as my theme today. I am talking about the leadership that has been shown during the negotiations not just by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change but by the whole team that was out there. I was delighted to meet up with Lord Nick Bourne, an old colleague of mine from Swansea institute, and to urge him to show that leadership. The outcome was good, but I am sure that the Secretary of State and her team will agree when I say that it is as nothing unless we now rise to the challenge that it has set up. We are looking at 3.5° to 3.7° based on our current trajectory of global warming. If all the actions within the current package are delivered, we may be able to achieve 2.5°, or even 1.5° if we ratchet up our actions every year or every five years. The scale of this transition is huge; it is enormous. We cannot base it on our current plans, so the leadership that has been shown should be commended. We now need that leadership to turbo-charge what we do both here within the UK and in our international negotiations.

Once again I applaud the leadership that has been shown on the ground in areas of flooding, including in Hawick in Northern Ireland, in Wales, and in Workington, the scenes from which were described in the remarkable and emotional words of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I was in Workington back in 2009, after what we thought was the worst flooding we had ever seen. That came on the back of the 2005 floods, and here we are again. Back in 2009, more than 2,200 properties and 250 farms were affected, 25 bridges were closed, and 40 waste treatment works were closed—again there is that issue of resilience—and here we are again.

In response to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), whom I love dearly, I have to say that he is completely wrong. We are not talking about this one event being down to climate change. It does not matter whether we are talking about the traumatic incidents in Cumbria, Scotland, north Wales, Ireland, Bangladesh, or the Maldives, it is a pattern of climate change that is unarguable and we must deal with it.

In the short time available, I must say to the UK Government that, if we are to make the Paris commitments work and go further, we really need a step change now. We need to go further on the international stage. I strongly urge the Minister and her team to go back and look at what we are doing at an EU level. I suggest that we are not being ambitious enough to meet that 1.5° or 2° target. In terms of this country, the right hon. Lady has admitted that we have a policy vacuum at the moment, specifically in regard to the closure of various schemes. I will not argue the pros and cons of it, but we have a policy vacuum none the less, whether it relates to energy efficiency in homes, the type of clean green energy that we produce, demand reduction, or residential or commercial properties. We are consistently being told by business people and others that there is a policy vacuum in all those areas.

[Neil Parish]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a tidal lagoon in Swansea would be a very good way to produce tidal energy, and that we could use that idea all around the United Kingdom?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My admiration for the hon. Gentleman has gone up hugely, because I was not going to be able to get in that point. He is right. We were a little frustrated by the lack of announcements on the Swansea Bay lagoon and strike prices in the autumn statement. Let us now see a commitment that will take forward not only the Swansea Bay lagoon, but the Cardiff Bay lagoon and all the ones that come after it. One of my recommendations to the Secretary of State would be this: let us use this as an opportunity to create jobs and to be a world leader so that we can export that technology, that know-how and those jobs. It is there for the taking. When Stern warned us about the challenges of climate change, he told us to make the early investment to save money down the line. That is what we must now do.

[Rebecca Pow]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I wonder whether you might want to comment on this: with the plan you are suggesting, we need much more—

[Rebecca Pow]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether we need more detailed inspection within Government Departments so that we are all doing our bit? We have a green investment strategy in the Department for Transport, but what about all the other Departments? Should we be working together more?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady, who is so committed on these issues, is absolutely right. The approach needs to be cross-departmental and rigorous, and it needs a step change. We have been trying to turn the supertanker around slowly, but Paris says that that is not fast enough. Lord Deben, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, has said that we need to do more. We heard recently from the head of the National Audit Office, who said that we need joined-up thinking and leadership in government. The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

One of the biggest commitments the Government could make—the Secretary of State and her team would have my support—is fully to accept what the Committee on Climate Change says about the outcomes of Paris. It said in its June report that we need to go further and faster. We will now need to go faster again and deliver more. There are opportunities with that. I ask the Secretary of State to accept that—I ask her to do it and get on with it, and in fact go beyond it if she can. She should look at how we can do that. What technologies should we invest in? Where will the private sector put its money? What do we do with the green investment bank? How does it play its part?

The Secretary of State should also fill the current gap from the fourth carbon budget. That is to do with leadership. It is great coming back from Paris with excellent commitments—they are better than many people were expecting. The UK played a leadership role there. We now need to take it to a whole other level. Paris means that it is not business as usual for us or for many other nations. Let us keep on leading and let us go further. I look forward to the Secretary of State saying how we will do that.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ben Howlett]

I agree that there should be more scientific research into this issue. I have not read the article to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am sure that he speaks with great eminence on the subject.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. It is very well attended, which shows how important it is. It is important that there is openness and transparency on the science and evidence. Such transparency might well help the Government. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, wrote to the Secretary of State on 1 September saying that she should publish all the evidence in a timely manner so that everyone can investigate. Things have moved on since then, but it would be good for all parties if, when decisions are made, the evidence is put out there so that everyone can interrogate it in a timely manner. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Ben Howlett]

Yes. An open and transparent world would be an awful lot more useful for our constituents, who, to be frank, have struggled. I must admit that I, too, have struggled to find some of the information that is available.

Moving on, I am well aware that the farming community produces some good arguments for the necessity of pesticides and neonics, which in some instances are much more effective than other pesticides. Nevertheless, a balance needs to be struck. Crops are without doubt an essential part of our nation’s agricultural sector, but bees also play an essential role in our natural environment as pollinators and otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: it is not possible to eradicate this disease without tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. She rightly says that the previous Government put their head in the sand and did nothing. This is a slow-moving, difficult disease and it has to be hit hard and early, which the previous Government failed to do. At a recent NFU conference Labour confirmed again that, irrespective of the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer, it would abandon the culls.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Despite the Government’s protestations, the previous Labour Government killed more badgers than any other Government. [Laughter.] Yes. The £50 million trial over 10 years concluded that such action gave no meaningful contribution to the eradication of tuberculosis. The Government’s badger culls have not just been a disaster for wildlife, but come at a huge financial cost. In the first year of the culls, the Government spent £9.8 million. With Ministers proposing to extend the badger culls, possibly to 10 areas and after that to 40 areas, how much more can taxpayers expect to fork out for these ineffective and inhumane badger culls?

[George Eustice]

The random badger cull trials that were carried out demonstrated incontrovertibly that, over time, the cull did lead to a significant reduction in the disease, which is why the experts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recommend a cull as part of the strategy. It is absolutely wrong for Labour to say that it will ignore the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer. On the costs in the first year, the cull clearly had elements of analysis, post mortem, research and policing that will not be present when we roll it out more widely. We are committed to having a badger cull as part of our 25-year strategy.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on introducing it, and on his calm and reasoned approach to the subject matter. I also congratulate the other right hon. and hon. Members who have made speeches or interventions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the right hon. Members for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), and the hon. Members for Watford (Richard Harrington), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for Hendon (Dr Offord), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). All brought well-informed views to the debate and spoke passionately on behalf of their constituents. There have been urban and rural, agricultural and non-agricultural, religious and non-religious views put forward. The animal welfare considerations have been wide-ranging, and I hope that people who read the report of the debate will, like me—and, I think, other Members—feel better informed because of the debate and this afternoon’s parliamentary work.

I forget who made the comment this afternoon that religious communities are deeply concerned with animal welfare. I put that top and foremost in my speech, because it is right. Those who condemn the slaughter practices of religious communities should be aware that those who practise shechita or halal do it with the best interest of the animal in mind, and attempt to do that to the highest standard.

The Labour party position is that we would prefer it if all animals were stunned before slaughter. That is a long-held policy position shared with Her Majesty’s Government and is based on well-established scientific consensus, which points to evidence that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress. The EU-funded DIALREL project, a DEFRA and New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry research study, a European Food Safety Authority study, and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, among others, have come to the same conclusion. Some, in defence of non-stun slaughter for religious reasons, contest the evidence; but the mainstream scientific consensus is well established. There is, however, an exemption within EU and UK law to allow religious slaughter for kosher and halal meat. Labour would prefer that all animals be stunned before slaughter, but we support the exemption, which allows for production and consumption of kosher and halal meat. There is of course a delicate balance to be struck between the pressing need to respect different religious communities and beliefs in the UK, and the equally pressing need for animal welfare and the reduction of suffering and distress in slaughter.

The Labour party also believes strongly that consumer interests are best served through transparency in food production and processing, and that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from, and how it was reared and slaughtered. We believe that that labelling to show different methods of slaughter, or simply stun or non-stun slaughter, has merit, but that it is best debated and agreed at an EU level to ensure a clear and consistent approach across all EU member states. We hope that today the Minister will be able to reveal some progress with the extended European Commission study on labelling, which was originally expected to report in 2014.

The Minister might also want to comment on the practicality of an industry-led UK-only scheme, in response to consumer concerns. The British trade body for the beef and sheep industry, EBLEX, led a consultation in 2013 on such a scheme, and the British Veterinary Association, of which I am an honorary associate member, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Slaughter Association have advocated the adoption of a simple logo to indicate whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. Has the Minister had any discussions with those trade bodies or other organisations on the practicality of implementing a UK-only scheme—perhaps industry-led, and perhaps a voluntary approach? Will the Minister also reveal what discussions, if any, he has had with consumer organisations about the changing levels of concern—or otherwise—of UK consumers, given heightened media coverage of the issue in recent times? What is the current level of consumer demand in the UK for clear labelling on methods of slaughter, or simply on stunned or non-stunned slaughter?

Many organisations have come together to demand a total ban on slaughter without pre-stunning. The Labour party commends their focus on animal welfare, which is something that we have long championed. Only last week, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), launched Labour’s wide-ranging animal welfare proposals, which were warmly welcomed.

However, the call for an outright ban on pre-stunned slaughter would have significant consequences. It would end the non-stunned slaughter for kosher and halal meat in the UK, which would of course impact on religious communities. It would not, to my understanding, ban the importation of non-stunned meat from other countries, where we have no direct control over methods of slaughter. If done in the UK, at least we can effectively regulate and enforce the highest standards of animal welfare for stunned and non-stunned slaughter. When standards of slaughter fall short, as they have in recent examples highlighted by Animal Aid and others, action can be and is taken decisively by UK authorities. For animal welfare considerations, therefore, exponents of a ban need to be sure that we would not simply offshore non-stunned slaughter to other countries where we have no such controls.

Let me be absolutely clear: banning the production of non-stunned meat will not lead automatically to the end of the consumption of non-stunned meat. For many Muslims and Jews, there is no alternative to consumption of meat slaughtered in accordance with their religious beliefs, or an interpretation of religious beliefs that stipulates that an animal may not be stunned.

Organisations such as the RSPCA, the BVA, the Humane Slaughter Association and others have come together with reasonable questions for the Minister on measures that fall short of a ban, but could improve animal welfare at slaughter. I ask him for his response to their suggestions, which he will have had time to consider before the debate. First, what consideration have the Government given to the German approach, which places a requirement on abattoirs to demonstrate religious need and demand, and to define precisely the numbers to be slaughtered for the demand of that religious community, as a condition of being granted a licence for non-stunned slaughter? The logic is that that restricts non-stunned slaughter to a minimum, and avoids excessive and unnecessary non-stunned slaughter, in which ultimately surplus meat is diverted away from those communities and into the wider UK and EU supply chain.

What discussions has the Minister had with our Muslim and Jewish community leaders and organisations in the UK on greater use of post-cut stunning to reduce animals’ distress and suffering? Does he, as Members have said today, see scope for progress on that? Post-cut stunning would be a significant step forward on animal welfare. While countries such as Finland, Estonia, Austria, Slovakia and Australia have made that mandatory, we want to see our religious communities work with the Government to achieve that without mandation, if possible.

Labour will continue to speak up for animal welfare and consumer rights while respecting religious communities. There is work to be done by Government, but also by and with organisations concerned with animal welfare and those religious communities affected, who are also hugely concerned with animal welfare. We are committed to taking this matter forward when we are in government, working with all concerned to ensure the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter, and building on our long-standing support for improving welfare standards in production and processing of Great British food and in our fisheries. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I know that the hon. Lady made that point previously. I do not think that there has been anything in the debate today to suggest that that is the case among hon. Members taking part in it, and indeed the motion itself makes it absolutely clear that it is looking just at the animal welfare issue, so I am not sure that we should go down that route.

In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) pointed out, the Government have no plans at all to ban religious slaughter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that there is no intention to ban religious slaughter. However, everyone agrees that we need good enforcement of our existing legislation.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Does the Minister see any scope for progress on post-cut stunning, which would be a real step forward? Several hon. Members raised that.

[George Eustice]

Yes, and I am going to come to that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned enforcement and I can confirm that today, following a number of incidents, the FSA has begun a series of unannounced inspections of GB slaughterhouses, and by the end of March all approved slaughterhouses will have been subject to an unannounced inspection.

On the shadow Minister’s point, in the longer term, we may be able to learn lessons from other countries. Some other countries have managed to accommodate or reconcile the beliefs of Jewish and Muslim communities while having a slightly different approach from us. A number of countries, including Holland and France, do have a requirement for a post-cut stun in a particular time scale. It is not easy to get consensus among the religious communities for that, but we should also recognise, as I said at the beginning, that in many respects our national rules are better than those elsewhere in Europe, especially on the issue of inversion, which is, according to all advice, quite serious.

We have had a very good, informative debate, covering a wide range of issues. It has been a pleasure to be here to debate this issue again.

Dairy Industry

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

During the previous Parliament, in 2006, I set up the all-party group for dairy farmers. In Shropshire at that time, nearly a decade ago, we already recognised the crisis that our dairy farmers faced. Some 160 Members of Parliament joined the all-party group and we had an excellent secretariat, the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. The Prime Minister joined the all-party group when he was Leader of the Opposition; it was the only one that he joined during that Parliament. After a year of deliberations, taking evidence, going to Brussels and meeting various organisations, we came up with two recommendations: a limited cull of badgers to deal with the crisis of bovine TB, and a Bill introducing a groceries adjudicator to regulate the supermarkets and their conduct towards processors and dairy farmers. We took those recommendations to David Miliband, who basically laughed us out of his office—

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Rubbish!

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

This has already been an excellent debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), a good Swansea boy, and all Members who have spoken for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and others reminded us of the importance of the dairy industry not simply to the economy, growth and exports but to the social fabric of our rural communities, their interplay with our towns, and our health and well-being.

About 14 billion litres of milk are produced in the UK each year, and about half of that is used for liquid milk. The UK is the third largest milk producer in the European Union, after Germany and France, and the 10th largest in the world. Given the industry’s value of £4.27 billion at 2013 market prices, its importance is clear.

However, despite the long-term optimism expressed by some Members, Ministers and EU Agricultural Commissioner Phil Hogan, the dairy sector has suffered from low prices and volatility for years. The November 2014 farm-gate price of 28.91p per litre was down 16% from the previous year. The 2012 milk crisis led to blockades of depots and processors, and thousands of angry farmers descended on Westminster to confront Ministers. In fact, the former Minister who was confronted by those angry dairy farmers, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), is now the chairman of First Milk, which is owned and run by dairy farmers who have been forced to delay payments. He told the press recently that

“hundreds of UK dairy farmers are unlikely to find a home for their milk this spring.”

In addition to that delay, First Milk’s producers have seen the price they are paid plummet from 32.5p per litre last spring to 21.2p per litre for those supplying the Co-op on liquid contracts and 21.57p per litre for those in the manufacturing pool.

The average farm-gate price of about 28p per litre disguises huge variations. A third of liquid milk is sold to retailers, which base the price they pay on what it costs the farmers to produce it, plus an agreed margin. Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer currently pay 34p per litre, Waitrose pays 33p per litre, Tesco pays 32p per litre and the Co-op pays almost 31p per litre.

Some major retailers, though not all, argue that their massive discounting of liquid milk at four pints for less than 90p in their endless price wars is not done at the cost of farmers. They argue that the only casualty in the price wars is their own profit margins, but frankly, even supermarkets that pay decent farm-gate prices to the producers and have the most direct relationships cannot absolve themselves of responsibility. The fact that they engage in price wars in which liquid milk is a prime weapon embeds the idea that milk is a commodity to be undervalued and sold for less than the price of water or carbonated and unhealthy fizzy drinks. Ultimately, the only casualty in the price war is the dairy farmer. We need to see not only British milk but British dairy products on supermarket shelves.

Some retailers and their production chains do not contract directly with producers, so they may not have regard to the voluntary dairy code, which I will return to in a moment. They do not absorb the costs of the price wars themselves, and instead put pressure on their supply chain, which causes farmers to reduce costs further below the cost of production.

Two thirds of liquid milk produced is sold to processors, which is where the cuts are being made. Arla, which supplies Asda, pays farmers 25p per litre. Müller-Wiseman pays the same. Dairy Crest is set to cut its price to less than 25p per litre, and we await a decision on the sale of Dairy Crest’s liquid milk division to Müller in the latest act of business consolidation to drive out costs. First Milk, as I said, pays less than 22p per litre. Iceland supermarket is supplied by Arla and Müller-Wiseman, but it has asked them to base their future prices on the cost of production—that is at least a step forward. Morrisons has announced that it intends to establish its own producer group, but in the meantime it gets its milk from Arla and Dairy Crest.

There is also huge variation in production costs. The figure most commonly cited is the National Farmers Union average of 28p per litre. However, the most recent figures from the industry body, DairyCo, show that there is a 14p per litre difference in the cost of production between the top quarter and the bottom quarter of farms.

We need a prompt review of how the whole dairy industry is overseen through the dairy code and the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The genesis of the dairy code, which was established on a voluntary basis in November 2012, was a dairy crisis that culminated in blockades, protests and a Minister leaving his post benighted but not delighted at his treatment. However, the independent review by Alex Fergusson MSP in 2014 proposed an extension to retailers and measures to increase the uptake into the 15% that are not currently signed up to the code.

When the public and the political awareness of the pressure on dairy farmers is so great and when the public relations disaster for processors and retailers is so potent, why is the take-up not higher? Why is it not universal? Will the Minister commit to name and shame everybody who has not signed up to the dairy code in public, on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website and in Parliament? Will he also commit to name and shame and publish a regularly updated list on the DEFRA website and in Parliament of all the processors and retailers that participate in supply chains that pay farmers less than the average cost of production?

The Government, in evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 2013, repeated their previously stated position. They said that they would seriously consider legislating for compulsory contracts if the code fails to deliver the desired outcomes. Does the Minister now feel that that is needed, or has he considered it and ruled it out?

I and some Members here today know that the Government had to be dragged into agreeing to financial penalty powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I sat on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they did. They conceded only under pressure from Members on both sides of the Committee. They argued against giving it those powers, which perhaps explains why it has taken so long to introduce the regulations. I and others have repeatedly raised that delay in Parliament.

I ask the Minister to clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he was pressed on extending the role and remit of the GCA to the dairy industry at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 January. He said:

“I also think it is time to look at whether there are ways in which its remit can be extended to make sure it looks at more of this vital industry.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 217.]

We all welcome the sinner who repents, but that issue was discussed ad nauseam in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee two years ago, and the Government rejected it. We had the opportunity to extend the powers along the whole supply chain, including processors and intermediaries, but that was dismissed as disproportionate. We also had the opportunity to enable the GCA to investigate abuses, but that was dismissed as allowing “fishing expeditions”.

I seek clarity, so let me ask the Minister directly. When the Prime Minister referred to extending the remit of the GCA to look at more of the industry, did he mean that it should include intermediaries? Did he mean that the GCA should have the power to instigate proactive investigations into abuses, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee asked for?

The current pressures on the dairy industry go beyond the UK. They reflect reduced demand in China due to the economic slow-down and the closure of the Russian market. The recent increase in production in the EU due to confidence in higher milk prices in 2013, good grazing and good weather, and increased yields in the UK conspired to lead to an over-supply. Arla suggests that global production is increasing by 5% per year, while demand is growing by only 2%. There is no single answer, but there are several areas in which we need to take action in the face of continuing long-term global price volatility and predicted continuing falls in farm-gate prices in the near future.

Will the Minister update us on the progress on country-of-origin labelling, on the establishment of producer organisations in the dairy sector, on the futures market for dairy and on what the uptake and interest in it has been? How much of the countryside productivity scheme money—the £141 million—has gone directly to dairy farmers, and what measures has it funded? What progress has been made with banks and lenders to deal with the immediate cash-flow problems? What discussions has the Minister had about the resilience of the dairy sector in the face of increased volatility that could follow the ending of milk quotas on 1 April this year? Most of all, we would like to know what the Prime Minister meant on 21 January. Was he serious, was he committed or was he deluded? Was he misinformed? Did he misspeak? Was he off piste and off message? Was it a soundbite in the run-up to the election to make the farming community think he is listening? The Minister has the chance to clarify whether the Prime Minister knew what he was talking about, or whether he was just spinning out of control.

It is over to the Minister to sort out the confusion from No. 10. Here we are again, three months to the day after the previous dairy debate, and three years after the previous dairy crisis. Our dairy farmers need and deserve some straight answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I visited the food bank in Camborne in my constituency just before Christmas to support the work that it does. It is better for food banks to have predominantly non-perishable goods to support the great work that they do.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

There is no shortage of food in this country, yet more than 1 million people are going hungry and relying on emergency food aid. There is no shortage of compassion from food bank volunteers, but there is a hunger of compassion in a Government who are taking us back to the 1930s in spending and to Victorian times in attitudes to the poor. The Secretary of State sat out the last debate on food banks. Will the Minister apologise for the Government’s staggering complacency in the face of a food crisis in which an advanced nation cannot feed its working poor and its vulnerable, or will he join again the collective chorus of denial in the dying days of this Government?

[George Eustice]

The Government have got 1.7 million people back into work and taken 3 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. If the Labour party had had its way, it would have frozen energy prices at the top of the market, but we have seen energy prices continue to fall. Food prices have fallen for the first time since 2002 and are continuing to do so.

Food Security

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hood, and I am delighted to follow the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). She says that she represents one of the most rural constituencies, if not the most rural, in the country; I represent probably one of the most urban, with Canary Wharf in the south half and Tower Hamlets in the north. When I was appointed Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was attacked in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph as a veggie and a townie: “What does he know about the countryside?” Fortunately, the National Farmers Union was much more pragmatic and generous, and I think I can say that I built up a positive working relationship with it during my year in office. It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister and the Minister in their places. I look forward to hearing their comments.

“Food security” conjures up three things for me: security of international supply, UK self-sufficiency, and the honesty and integrity of the food that we eat. The hon. Lady mentioned the reduction in the percentage of food produced in the UK. I do not think that that is a major problem. British farming should have opportunities and challenges to produce and sell more, but most important to feeding the nation is ensuring that international supply lines are strong and varied, and that our food has integrity. The horsemeat scandal has been mentioned, and I will return to it later. Internationally, hunger and death from starvation is still a major world scourge. There is food poverty within the UK as well, with a growing number of people dependent on food banks across the country.

Food security is not about self-sufficiency alone; it is about safeguarding against failing harvests, disease and climate change, all of which can disrupt supply. It is positive that the Government accept many of the recommendations from the EFRA Committee; there is much consensus about food, production and standards. If I may sound one discordant note, it is my disappointment that the Government dropped the Food 2030 strategy worked out by the last Government. It was well researched, science-based and evidence-led, and it was a medium to long-term map for how the UK could progress over the 20 years after it was produced. Obviously, however, the Government have their own programme to promote and follow.

I would like to mention two items before referring to some of the recommendations in the report; I do not intend to speak for very long. One is milk and dairy. The Committee is examining the issue in a short inquiry, and the all-party parliamentary group on dairy has been holding its own inquiry for the past three weeks, with two or three still to go. With world production at record levels, the price of milk is dropping, and Russian sanctions are affecting our ability to compete in the world market. Obviously, there is great concern in the dairy industry about the future of dairy, and it would be interesting if the Minister could comment on what the Government are doing to help the dairy sector get through this period of massive world production and difficulties with sanctions.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although retailers, distributors and processors have a duty to the bottom line, to shareholders and to consumers to put affordable milk and milk products on the shelves, they also have a duty to the integrity of the UK supply chain? Without the UK supply chain, they would not have milk and milk products to put on shelves. There should be transparency, but there should also be a fair deal for dairy producers.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said a few moments ago, UK retailers should show some solidarity and loyalty to UK producers. I will come to the transparency of prices in a moment when I cover recommendation 21.

The second issue that I will mention, which was also mentioned briefly by the hon. Lady, is the European sugar regime and the sugar quota. In east London we have Tate & Lyle, the biggest cane refinery in the world. Beet production is doing well, but the market might fluctuate. Tate & Lyle is struggling to deal with the unfairness of the new regime. I know that UKRep in Brussels has been lobbying, and that the Select Committee raised the matter when it met the commissioner and the appropriate officials last week. Does the Minister have any sight of how that discussion is going, and can he comment on any discussions that he has had with our officials in Brussels, or with Brussels officials, on the sugar quota and the sugar regime?

I will run briefly through a few of our recommendations. Recommendation 15 was mentioned by the hon. Lady. Any updates that the Minister can give us on greenhouse gases would be welcome. The Chair of the Select Committee recommended Professor Elliott’s report. Last week, when Professor Elliott gave evidence, was the first time that I had met him. He is a hugely impressive individual. To the Government’s credit, they accepted all the recommendations in his report, which is extremely welcome. It will furnish Government policy and the working of our Committee for a considerable time ahead. The hon. Lady mentioned the fact, which emerged in this week’s evidence session, that the statutory instrument on fines that the groceries code adjudicator could level against transgressors has not been laid before Parliament. If the Minister cannot say anything about that today, we would be delighted if he could do so on Tuesday when he comes before the Committee. He is bound to be asked about it, as the Secretary of State was yesterday.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about fairness and transparency, one issue that has come up several times in the all-party dairy group’s examination of dairy is the apparent lack of transparency and openness in pricing. Everybody knows what the farmer is being paid for their produce, and what the consumer is paying in our supermarkets and shops, but how we get from the farm-gate price to the retail price is still shrouded in mystery. There seems to be no direct relationship between the two. It would be interesting if the Minister had any comments on that, as numerous colleagues will be pressing him on that in the months ahead. The other issue raised was whether there might be a role for the adjudicator in initiating investigations rather than just responding to them, as she does at the moment. That will clearly require an amendment to the law. If the Minister has any comments on that, I would certainly be interested to hear them.

Lastly, recommendation 29 is on genetic modification, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The Committee recommendation asked questions about Government support for genetically modified food and whether there is an information campaign to create balance in the public’s mind about what GM can and cannot do. Comments in the report and the Government’s response ask whether the European Parliament will consider the matter in due course, and whether the Minister expects the European Parliament to agree to the Commission’s change of policy on GM; that is also of interest.

Food security is critical to the well-being of our species and the planet. It should be central to Government policy. As the hon. Lady said, the Minister here should be the Government lead on that policy. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the Minister. The Committee has produced an excellent report, if we say so ourselves. It has some excellent recommendations, of which the Government have accepted quite a number, and we are keen to hear what colleagues have to say about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

As always, it is a delight to be under your stewardship, Mr Hood, and I am also delighted to take part in this important debate this afternoon. While we are relatively few in number here in Westminster Hall today, I am slightly overawed by the expertise displayed by all the Members who have already taken part in the debate—I mean that quite genuinely—and by their passion for this issue, because they get the importance of food and food security. So I begin by commending the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its report’s timely focus on food security and for prompting this debate.

As usual, within this detailed report—it is a quite comprehensive part one of two reports—there is a feast of recommendations and information. There is far too much for me to digest and reflect upon in a relatively short contribution.

Let me turn to some of the contributions from the members of the Select Committee who are here today. Its Chairman, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said early in her contribution that the Government must plan for food security. That point has resonated across all contributions today, and I will pick up on it as well. Such a plan needs coherence and not just vision, but action planning down to the detail, and there needs to be a cross-Government, cross-sectoral approach that ties in industry and other stakeholders and, crucially, the Government nationally and all the way down through the devolved Administrations, and so on.

The hon. Lady also picked up on the need for cross-Government leadership on food by a DEFRA Minister and said that the Minister here today should be the one doing it. I agree. In future, it might be somebody else—who knows?—but I agree that a DEFRA Minister is needed in there, arguing the case, championing it and doing that cross-Government collaboration, not in bits and pieces, but across the whole shooting match. That is exactly what is needed. My hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) touched on that, too. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made many other detailed points that I will return to later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, with his great expertise, reminded us that when he was first put in post he was described by some out there, although not by all, as a townie vegetarian: “What does he know?” However, in his time in office, he rapidly proved them wrong and became trusted for the breadth of his knowledge of the area and the detail that he went into and for his ability to work collaboratively with all the people involved. He has taken his expertise on to the Select Committee. He outlined that although the report contains major challenges, it also speaks of the opportunities for farmers and food producers and for our big food industry—the biggest manufacturing industry employer in the UK—if we can get this right and if we have the willingness to do it.

My hon. Friend commented, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, on the rise of food banks as a measure of food insecurity on our own doorsteps, and we are certainly seeing that. He touched on the loss of Food 2030, although he was humble and did not discuss his pivotal role in producing that project. The loss of that strategy is much bemoaned by many people in the industry particularly, who liked the certainty, the cross-Government approach and not just the vision, but the fact that when we left government that was being translated into detailed action points. Initially, there was some criticism: “This big strategy is fantastic. We’ve never seen anything like this. It’s what we need, but where’s the real meat that follows it?” However, as we left government, we were starting to put that meat on.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend is being generous and I appreciate it. Does he agree that what happened to Food 2030 is disappointing because it was not a political draft, but a strategy for the Department, drafted with the advice of the chief scientist and others? That is why there was disappointment that the Government decided not to proceed with it as their framework.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. The project was so well worked-up and had the most wide-ranging group of stakeholders possible, from farmers, distributors, retailers, producers, non-governmental organisations: everybody was involved. There were disagreements—that was a tricky enterprise to embark upon and to get agreement on—but, my goodness, there was agreement that that was the right way forward. I will compliment the Government on some good initiatives, but they are not a substitute for that real, coherent, cross-sectoral, binding strategy that says that we are serious about food security, nutrition for children, international development issues and climate change. We would say strongly to the Minister that, if he introduced his own version of a strategy that looked like that—Food 2050, perhaps—we would support him in doing that. However, it needs to bind together all these critical things, because if we get it right for schoolchildren and local supply chains, and so on, it will also be good for producers in the UK. I will mention that in a moment.

It is unarguable that food security is now an imperative, globally and for individual nations, including the UK. As such, it is worth reminding ourselves that food security was defined by the world food summit way back in 1996 as existing

“when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.

It was redefined subsequently by the United Nations food and agriculture committee to include, rightly,

“dietary needs and food preferences”.

That definition remains sound, but the context has changed, not least in the scale and urgency of the challenges, summed up so well by Professor John Beddington in 2009, at a sustainable development conference, when he described the

“perfect storm”

that was coming:

“Our food reserves are at a 50 year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water."

This was reinforced by the Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, led by Professor Beddington, which Professor Tim Benton of the university of Leeds drew upon when he told the Committee in evidence that

“Wars are likely to happen”

in the competition for land and water and scarce resources.

The Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which ended earlier this year, brought together more than 200 organisations campaigning to end global hunger. Interestingly, they focused not simply on the efficient production and distribution of food, but on aid, land, tax and transparency. Food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned, is complex and international, but it is very personal for the 3 million children who die of malnutrition each year, in this modern world, or the 1 billion who go to bed hungry every night.

Here at home in the UK, we have seen the hugely accelerated growth in food banks and other types of food aid. I do not want to dwell on this, but I want to state two simple facts, which are both unarguable. Fact one: there has long been volunteer-led informal food aid in this country, going years back, in the shape of the distribution of emergency food, kitchens, and so on. The leading food bank organisation, the Trussell Trust, was providing just over 40,000 allocations of three-day emergency food packages in 2009-10, under the previous Labour Government. It has been there; it was there. That is a fact. However, the second fact is that last year the Trussell Trust provided over 913,000 three-day emergency food allocations. That is, by my rough calculation—and I am not great on maths—a twenty-two-fold increase.

Last February, a much-delayed report commissioned by DEFRA itself into the growth in food aid in the UK found that food aid providers ascribed the food insecurity to problems that have led to sudden reduction in household income, such as job losses, problems associated with social security payments and ongoing underpinning circumstances, such as continual low household income and indebtedness that can no longer support purchase of sufficient food to meet household needs. This analysis has been reinforced by many other analyses of this growing poverty and cost-of-living crisis.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a 60% increase in sanctions since welfare reform, as we heard in the all-party group on hunger and food poverty, and that is driving people, out of necessity and in their hundreds, to food banks?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, indeed, and that illustrates the point that there is no simple international or domestic solution to food security and related food insecurity; it is very much a function not simply of food production and distribution and waste, but of social and economic policy. That is why we need to get the whole package right, including welfare reforms. Certainly, in my constituency of Ogmore, the delays following the move to personal independence payments mean that, out of a population of some 60,000 on the electoral register—mine is a relatively small constituency—I have 920 cases waiting for PIP outcomes at the moment, with delays in payment, assessment, and so on. So getting this right is a real issue.

I mention that because, as we debate this useful report, it is worth reminding ourselves of two important points arising from food security at home and overseas. First, the causes of food insecurity are many and complex and so are the solutions, involving wider social and economic solutions, as well as food production, storage, distribution, and so on.

Secondly, food insecurity is not an abstract construct, but a deeply personal matter that can devastate lives, families, communities and even nations. It is in our gift as policy makers to fashion adequate responses and on that note, I turn to the report and the Government response.

We note that the Committee and the Government draw on much that was achieved or initiated under the previous Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. The comprehensive food security analysis in 2009, which the Select Committee report refers to, bolstered such groundbreaking work as the Food Matters strategy and the Foresight report on land use and how to resolve conflicts on land use, which were drawn together in the landmark Food 2030 strategy. That strategy was being worked up into detailed action plans when we left government. Simply put, it was the most ambitious, comprehensive approach to food strategy, taking in not only food security domestically and globally, but diet and nutrition, climate change and carbon reduction, land-use conflict and resolution and so much more. It looked at how we can encourage people to eat a healthy, sustainable diet; ensure a resilient, profitable and competitive food system; increase food production sustainably; reduce the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions; reduce, re-use and reprocess waste within the sector; and increase the impact of skills, knowledge, research and technology. It brought all that together in a streamlined, joined-up way of thinking across Government, industry and non-governmental organisations.

The industry, NGOs and others are still asking why the Government scrapped that strategy and retreated into government by silos, with DEFRA doing its things on food production, the Department of Health doing its things and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doing its things. What happened to the cross-Government, cross-sectoral working?

However, there have been some welcome developments. The green food project was good and well-intentioned, but even participants in it described it as too narrow and under-resourced, and it eventually ran into the sand. People were looking for what came next. The Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, adds usefully to the field of knowledge and to previous Foresight reports, including its “Land Use Futures” report under Labour.

The groceries code adjudicator, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, is a step forward in ensuring fair play in parts of the supply chain and had cross-party support, although we are still curious about why the Government resisted attempts by Labour and others, from all parties and all sectors, to strengthen the Bill with financial penalties until the Government were backed against the wall and facing defeat in Committee. As the hon. Lady asked, where does the GCA go now?

The fruit and vegetable taskforce action plan, which aims to increase the production and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the UK, is commendable and recognises the huge potential of the sector to benefit the economy and health and well-being. It builds on the work of the previous Labour Government, who established—I think it was under my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse—the fruit and vegetable taskforce. I am getting a little worried that I am praising him too much.

The agri-tech strategy is welcome, as it applies that collaborative approach to innovation and research and development across industry, academia, NGOs and Government. That was pioneered by Labour in such programmes as the marine science strategy. The agri-technology strategy needs to ensure that productivity gains and genuine environmental sustainability are simultaneously achieved and that there is full buy-in, not only from the UK, but from global partners—that is the nature of the beast—but it is the right approach. We are glad to see the Government taking forward and building on some of the pioneering achievements of the previous Labour Government, to help build food security and to introduce some logical additional programmes to help deliver some of the wider benefits of a sustainable and resilient food sector, but their piecemeal and disjointed approach is not a substitute for a coherent cross-Government, cross-sectoral plan of action. I am delighted that that point was echoed today by Government and Opposition Members in their different views.

I will ask the Minister some questions that arise directly from this Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report—this is part one of two—and on which the Government response is still unclear. Specifically, does he believe that the increased costs, including the environmental costs, and the global demand for meat protein mean that we will consume less but higher-quality meat in the future? If so, how do we get there? Does he believe that UK farming is increasingly vulnerable to the rising costs of animal feed, and what is he doing to bring forward specific measures to deal with that? That might involve alternative modes of farming.

What measures can the Minister take to extend the access of food producers, including small farmers, to the highest quality of meteorological prediction as part of our climate change adaptation programme? Does he agree that horticulture has the greatest potential to improve diets, boost food production sustainably and create employment? If so, what more can the Government do to accelerate growth in the sector? What specific measures does he have to promote social enterprises in horticultural growing and food distribution and in local food networks, as well as to promote greater links among people, communities and the food we eat and grow? What measureable, tangible progress has been made on increasing the production and consumption of fruit and vegetables since 2010 and on the taskforce established under Labour?

In the light of the decision by EU Environment Ministers to enable member-state decision making on genetically modified organisms within an EU framework, when will the first commercial applications for GM cultivation in the UK take place and for what products? Why, if the Government agree that pillar two is the better use of common agricultural policy money than pillar one, as they state in their response to the Select Committee report, did they retreat from that position and not ensure 15% modulation? Why, if they see direct payments to farmers under pillar one as an ineffective use of public money and a distortion of the market, did they see fit to place no additional demands on innovation, farm entry, public benefits or environmental benefits on the largest recipients of direct payments, who receive in excess of £150,000 a year or even £300,000 a year? Over the last couple of years, the Government have appeared in statements from the very top of DEFRA to be a little gung-ho in their advocacy of GM. How will the Minister take forward a balanced argument to the public, based on science and evidence, robust safety controls and labelling for consumer transparency?

Those are just some of the questions, and I suspect we will have to return to them in future debates. I thank the Select Committee for a well-informed and excellently argued first part of a two-part contribution to this essential debate on food security. I thank all members of the Committee for their expertise and for asking questions, as well as proposing some possible answers. We look forward to the second part of their report, where we can examine other issues in more detail, just as we now look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I understand that. I think that we do have that co-ordination, but I lead on food security. We also need co-ordination on science, because science will have many of the answers to the challenges we face.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Global Food Security programme, which was set up to co-ordinate food-related research. It is led by Tim Benton, whom the shadow Minister mentioned, and deals with joining up research in a number of areas, looking at how to improve resilience and the sustainable production and supply of food. It also considers nutrition, health and well-being. That programme is co-ordinating and joining up much of the specific, tailored research in this area. DEFRA is also looking more generally at whether we can co-ordinate more effectively all the various research bodies to reduce duplication and increase focus on research and its effectiveness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the importance of waste, an issue that the second part of the Committee’s food security report considers. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), is present for the next debate and waste is generally an issue that he covers, but it is important to recognise that, through the Courtauld commitment and the work of organisations such as the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we have already made good progress on reducing food waste. Household waste is down by some 15%, and we have reduced waste in the supply chain by some 8% and aim to reduce that further.

I want to touch on the importance of technology. Together with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we have an agri-tech strategy and a £160 million fund, £90 million of which is a catalyst fund to support projects in order to accelerate the transfer of knowledge into farms. Another part of the fund is designed to create centres of excellence in science and food technology.

On long-range weather forecasts, I chair a farm resilience group that meets every six months and will be meeting again in the new year. The Met Office is represented in the group, and we regularly discuss how to improve weather forecasting for farmers. DEFRA has also funded a project to examine our flood resilience on the east coast, and, in addition to some other international collaboration, we are doing some work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the US Government to understand the impact that extreme weather can have on global security. We are conscious of the weather’s impact and want to improve our forecasting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others mentioned the soft fruit industry’s success in extending its season. Our production-to-supply ratio for strawberries has increased from some 60% to 70% just in the past decade or so. I was in the soft fruit industry myself some 20 years ago, and some of these things are not as new as some people say. In Cornwall 20 years ago, I was producing strawberries in heated glasshouses from the end of March right through until Christmas. We used to pride ourselves on having strawberries from Easter to Christmas. The advent of Spanish and French-style polytunnels has given more protection to such crops and has enabled a more widespread extension of the season. My hon. Friend also mentioned apricots, which are indeed now grown in the UK under temporary polythene structures.

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of reforming the common agricultural policy. The Government argued against the greening measures in pillar one and were clear that it should be kept as simple as possible, and that the best way to deliver for the environment was through our highly successful agri-environment schemes and pillar two. I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has written to new Commissioner Hogan, with whom I spoke last week. The European Commission is certainly open to the idea of reconsidering some of the greening requirements, and possibly even reconsidering in the mid-term review the idea of the three-crop rule or how it is applied. We have worked with our allies in the Stockholm group of countries, which argue for reform of the CAP and the European Union, to reach a common position to argue for the simplification of the CAP. We hope to make some progress on that next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned soya beans, and I have already touched on the fact that the pig industry has been particularly successful in reducing the amount of soya bean that it uses. The other thing to note is that one possible impact of the greening of pillar one—of which, I repeat, we were critical—is that in order to reach the three-crop rule some arable farmers may grow leguminous crops such as broad beans to count towards both their third crop and their ecological focus areas. Potentially, we could see an increase in the production of broad beans and other leguminous crops, which might then displace soya imports.

My hon. Friend also mentioned soil protection. Under our cross-compliance regime, we will scrap the need for a soil protection review, which is only a paper-based exercise that people go through and tick boxes. It does not mean much and is simply an administrative task, and we are replacing it with something much more meaningful. Where we know about soil management challenges on farms or inappropriate management of the soil having an impact on water courses, for example, we want to put in place meaningful measures to deal with that. We are completely overhauling cross-compliance in that area.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is giving a comprehensive report,. Will he give us more idea of what “meaningful measures” might be? It is only one point in his overall plans, but this different approach is interesting—to say, “We are not doing a tick-box scheme, but we will target instead.” What might such measures be? Does he have any early indications?

[George Eustice]

Yes. We will shortly be publishing the detailed guidance on the cross-compliance, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at it then. In essence, it means farmers ensuring that they have vegetative cover on fields for the maximum possible amount of time; that they only plough when they need to, just ahead of sowing; or that, for example, if they have a problem with water running off their fields, they might consider ploughing them in a different way so that the water does not tunnel down the furrowed ploughed land. We can do a number of different things, and that is the kind of sensible measure that we will have in cross-compliance, rather than having a simple paper-based exercise.

On the groceries code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned third-party complaints. I was on the Bill Committee that scrutinised the introduction of that adjudicator. Third parties may complain on behalf of other people, but she made a moot point about whether the adjudicator should be able to instigate investigations itself, without a complaint. In a year or two, a review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is the sponsoring Department, might consider that, but at the moment it is too early to make such a judgment.

My hon. Friend also mentioned new entrants. I confirm that we are working on a plan to support new entrants into the industry through the rural development programme. It is a delight to be in the Chamber today, but were it not for this debate, I would have been speaking at the Farmers Weekly “Fertile Minds” conference in Cumbria, which is all about trying to engage new people into the industry. That is something that we are looking at, and I am working on a project about encouraging the use, for instance, of share farm or contract farm agreements to create alternative routes for new people into the industry.

We are already delivering on our commitment to increase exports. Through UK Trade & Investment, we have already helped 2,500 food and drink companies and, so far this year, we have opened more than 100 new international markets to animals and animal products. That includes countries such as the Cayman Islands, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and, for dairy products, Cuba. We are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to opening new markets.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), mentioned the previous Government’s “Food 2030”. People can, however, get too hung up on particular reports. I have read the report and, where it talks about the importance of agricultural technology, I would argue that we have taken things forward in our agri-tech strategy and other things. The report mentions the importance of sustainable intensification—we have had our own green food project with various route maps. It talks about new entrants—I have just explained what we hope to do on that. There is a consistency of themes between what we are doing and what was identified in the report as a challenge.

In addition, we have asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and its new chair, Peter Kendall, to put in place a plan for British agriculture and for how we can make it more competitive. That is a priority for that levy organisation.

[George Eustice]

There we go, we have an outbreak of consensus. As I said, we are taking forward many of the points.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the existing precarious condition of the dairy industry, which has seen sharp falls in prices. I will have the pleasure of appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week to discuss such issues in more detail. For now, I point out that last week we had a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum, which I chair. We looked at the issue of price volatility and at whether the industry can do more, or whether we can support it, to develop financial instruments that might help them to manage volatility in future. We have also had a review by Alex Fergusson MSP of how the dairy supply chain code is working.

On GM foods, which a number of hon. Members mentioned, our position is consistent. We believe in a science-based approach; if we get the regulation right, there could be a role for such crops. That remains our position. We have always sought allies to argue that case in the European Union.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about food security and, in the context of food banks, people’s ability to afford food. I will not stray into areas that are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, which might be outside the scope of the debate, but I want to say that although there was a big spike in food prices in 2008, in the past year we have seen food prices fall for the first time since 2002. I chair AMIS, the Agricultural Market Information System, which monitors agricultural commodity markets, and most of the projections at the moment are that for the next couple of years there will be relative stability in cereal prices.

The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned animal feeds. I want to touch on that, because animal feed costs are lower. Although prices are in some cases just as low for dairy farmers as they were two years ago, the fact that animal feed prices are lower means that farmers’ financial viability is not as compromised as it might have been. He also talked about local food networks, and we are keen to encourage and promote local food production. That is why we asked Peter Bonfield to put in place our new Government plan for procurement, which is all about encouraging the public sector locally—schools and hospitals—to buy and source its food locally, from local suppliers.

The hon. Member for Ogmore also mentioned the role of health. Public Health England regularly runs campaigns to encourage healthy eating, in particular the “eatwell plate”, through which people are encouraged to have their five a day, to moderate their meat consumption and so on.

The final thing that I wanted to mention was the point about meat production made by the hon. Gentleman. We are not going to lecture people on what they should or should not eat, but one of the things that emerged from an informal session that we had at the European Council recently was what might happen if we want to reduce our carbon footprint in meat production, which is perhaps a bit of a trend towards less intensive systems, predominantly using grassland production, the environmental impact of which is lower. The lamb and beef systems of production in this country have less impact on the environment than those of many other countries.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My intention is to come back only on that point, because a lot of good stuff is going on and there is a lot of continuity, which is great and which people want to see. The Minister mentioned procurement and diet, health and well-being, but with so many such areas involved, does he sit down with other Ministers and talk about the effect of X, Y and Z on the food industry, jobs, average earnings, food banks or the response to food aid, telling them what he would like them all to do?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman has been in government, and he knows that Ministers have regular meetings with other Ministers on a range of issues. I regularly meet the Health Minister with responsibility for those matters to discuss issues such as nutrition.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more go.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am trying to enhance the Minister’s position. I would like him to sit down in a cross-departmental way and say, “Health, you are doing great things. BIS, you are doing great things. All of you are doing great things, but it is within a context. We will deal with things, such as access to food within the UK, and we will do it in this manner, coherently.” I want him to do that. Will he do it?

[George Eustice]

As we said in our response to the report, DEFRA leads on food security. Ministers have many meetings with ministerial colleagues, and we have many cross-Government committees, some of which are chaired by Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientist, and some of which are chaired by officials. This is an important debate on a wide-ranging report that makes an important contribution to the debate on food security. Again, I congratulate the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on their work.

Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for conducting themselves with real intelligence, insight, clarity on detail and compassion for the many interested parties in a fascinating but sensitive debate. I also thank the all-party group on beef and lamb and the hon. Gentleman, its chairman, for producing a genuinely thoughtful report on meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. Every member of that group—some of them are here today—is a thoughtful and insightful individual. I declare my interest as a member of that all-party group.

I congratulate the APPG on bringing light to this debate in place of heat. Some people have tried to use the subject of halal and kosher meat as a proxy for a generalised attack on Muslim and Jewish communities. The report rejects that dark populism and rightly focuses instead on animal welfare and informed consumer choice. The report also attempts to take an evidence-based approach, which will not be welcomed by some who have firm positions either in opposition to or in support of the methodologies underpinning the production of halal and kosher meat. It is worth saying that the two methodologies differ in their detail.

The report is the right way to advance our understanding and to encourage sound policy making. Although I welcome the report, I do not think it is the end of the matter. This is a notoriously difficult subject not simply because of the religious and cultural sensitivities but because of some of the technical detail and gaps in scientific certainty. The report, however, is a worthy attempt to understand the matter, and it makes some useful recommendations. The religious and cultural sensitivities deserve our full consideration, and they must of course be set against any legitimate, if contested, concerns about animal welfare and the desire for informed consumer choice expressed through labelling. The report addresses all those matters.

The facts are important in this debate, as sometimes the tabloid hyperbole can overtake the reality. Although shechita slaughter prohibits any form of stunning, more than 80% of halal animals are pre-stunned. The Food Standards Agency estimated in 2012 that 3% of cattle, 10% of goats and sheep and 4% of poultry were not pre-stunned as part of halal slaughter—let us get the facts on the record. Religious slaughter has strict oversight by official veterinarians from the Meat Hygiene Service, and there are strict regulations governing meat hygiene and animal welfare and statutory regulations in each food business operator. The official veterinarians can give written or verbal advice on improvements, issue warnings and recommend prosecutions where necessary.

Of course, several organisations have now come to the conclusion that slaughter without pre-stunning compromises animal welfare. Those organisations include the British Veterinary Association—of which I am delighted to be an honorary member—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Humane Slaughter Association and others. They have presented strong evidence to support their case for a ban on such slaughter. But equally, as we have heard, organisations such as Shechita UK contest that evidence and have presented powerful counter-arguments and evidence. Of course, shechita meat could not be produced if there were a requirement for pre-stunning before all slaughter, and there have been some well made points on that today.

The organisations that advocate a complete ban on slaughter without stunning also advocate an alternative way forward if there can be no ban. They propose working with religious communities to enhance the enforcement of existing welfare-at-slaughter legislation where non-stun slaughter takes place; to introduce immediate post-cut stunning; to ensure time and facilities for the official veterinarian to be able adequately to monitor welfare where non-stun slaughter takes place; and to educate consumers.

[Neil Parish]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right. One of the problems with shechita is that the Jewish authorities just will not accept any post-stunning. I can understand the need for an animal to be conscious at the time of cut, but post-stunning would be very useful for large animals.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we need to work on both the religious and cultural differences and methodologies to find a way forward that, as he rightly says, does not stamp on the liberties that come with the absolutely right and long history of not only tolerance but acceptance of those differences within UK society.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman say what a future Labour Government, if one should ever happen, will do? I hope that, like us, a future Labour Government would continue to allow religious slaughter, but there is one area that worries me. What happens to the beef, in particular, that is rejected? Does it not just go back into the food chain? Everybody else is therefore buying non-stunned meat without necessarily knowing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will fully lay out our position. I appreciate that he came late, but that was covered earlier in the debate. I will cover it in my speech.

The proposals on an alternative way forward include educating consumers about animal welfare at slaughter—hon. Members have already addressed that point—and giving people confidence when they buy meat or meat products by providing reliable explanatory information about food labels or logos of assurance schemes that require stunning before slaughter so that people can make informed choices. The final proposal is the introduction of a simple logo for packaging to indicate meat obtained from non-stunned animals or the promotion of labelling from existing farm assurance schemes that require stunning before slaughter, such as the red tractor scheme. Those are reasonable and sensible proposals that focus not on the religious element of slaughter but on animal welfare and informed consumer choice. Do such suggestions meet with the Minister’s approval? How will he act upon them?

An issue raised by some organisations that has attracted much attention is increasing informed consumer choice through clear labelling. The Labour party, of course, supports informed consumer choice and has been a champion of clearer food labelling for a range of issues, such as nutritional information. However, in the context of meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, the question becomes what the label should say. Should meat be labelled halal or kosher? That was roundly and rightly rejected by parliamentarians of all parties when a private Member’s Bill to that end was presented to Parliament last May. Should all different types of slaughter be labelled for the consumer? In that case, make room on the label for “slaughter by electrical current”, or by carbon dioxide, inert gas, captive bolt pistol, gunshot or free bullet and so on. Some advocate doing so, as we have heard in this debate, and it would certainly satisfy the need for transparency, although it could reasonably be argued that it is not currently being demanded by consumers.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman sets out clearly some alternative methods of stunning, but one hon. Member who spoke in this debate—I am sure it was by mistake—included clubbing as a method of pre-stunning. We should put it on record that clubbing can in no way be seen as a legal method of stunning in this country.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record appropriately. I am not aware that clubbing is a legitimate method sanctioned within UK slaughterhouses, so I am not sure where it came from. The methods that I listed are legitimate, sanctioned and overseen by veterinarians, the Food Standards Agency and others.

[Dr Offord]

If that was me, it was certainly not my intention, and I apologise for making that assertion. I have been told that fish can be killed that way.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that on record.

To return to the issue of labelling, how it could be done and the difficulties involved, should labelling focus on the issue of stunning or the absence thereof? That seems to be the crux of the consumer argument as well as the animal welfare argument. If that or any alternative labelling proposals are to be taken forward, Labour believes that any implementation of proposals affecting meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites must involve full engagement with the faith groups affected, as well as with other interested parties. But—this is a significant “but”—surely that is best done at European level. I ask the Minister for an update on progress in European discussions on the issue. I will be raising it in my discussions with European colleagues this evening and tomorrow in Brussels, and it would be helpful to know what progress, if any, has been made.

The Minister will want to respond in detail to the points raised and to the recommendations in the report. I draw his attention to a couple of specific points. Recommendation 5 relates to concerns about the accuracy of recording of mis-stunning and mis-slaughtering in slaughter practices unrelated to religious slaughter. A written answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton on 24 March 2014 revealed that under the FSA recording procedures, in the whole nation only nine cases of cattle mis-stunning were recorded for 2013-14, as well as one duck, three pigs, three sheep and one turkey. The Minister told the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on 1 April this year that a study into the accuracy of the data was unnecessary, but when pursued by me and others in written questions, he responded to me on 26 September:

“The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is due to complete a review into its monitoring and reporting of breaches of welfare legislation by the end of October. Previously”—

this may explain things—

“only major and critical breaches were recorded, along with the actions taken to correct these. The FSA review is now also looking to strengthen recording of minor breaches.”

I look forward to the results of that review, as many people look at the figures with disbelief.

I say to the Minister that if the principle is animal welfare, that principle must extend across all forms of slaughter, not simply slaughter done in accordance with religious rites. We look forward to hearing the results of the FSA review and what actions might follow.

Finally, what work has the Minister carried out to assess consumer awareness of the issues raised in this debate, such as meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites or stunned and non-stunned meat production? It cannot be left to the tabloids or rabble-rousers to set the agenda. We must have, as we have had today, a well informed and calm public and policy debate that proposes appropriate solutions that apply the highest animal welfare standards, provide clear and appropriate information for consumers and recognise and respect the cultural and religious practices of our diverse communities.