Badger Cull

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Other Members want to get speak, so, if I may, I will push on a bit further.

Vaccination is another tool that we will continue to invest in—we are spending £15.5 million on research and development in this Parliament—one that I know many hon. Members would like to see deployed. Some £43 million has been invested since 1994 in this vital work, to which the shadow Secretary of State alluded. We, too, would like to deploy it more widely, but I am afraid that we are just not there yet in terms of either development or practicality, as has been clearly described in this morning’s Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report.

Oral cattle and badger vaccines will, I hope, prove viable, but they will not be ready to deploy for years, and we cannot wait while the disease puts more livestock farms out of business and threatens the sustainability of the industry. In January, the Minister of State and I met the EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, Tonio Borg, to discuss our progress towards a cattle vaccine. He acknowledged that we have done more than any other country to take this work forward, but confirmed that the implementation of a legal and validated cattle vaccine is still at least 10 years away.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Paterson]

I will generously give way to the shadow Minister.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Secretary of State clarify the comments he made a moment ago? If a viable badger vaccination, be it oral or injectable, were developed within the next few years, would he then have no intention to proceed with any cull? Would it be his preference to move forward with the vaccination of badgers instead?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This has been a good debate, and I commend all Members who have spoken today for their contributions, not least those who focused on the science, the evidence and the facts. On an issue as important as this, we must have evidence-based policy. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) just made some remarks about our discussion of issues of animal husbandry, cattle movements and so forth. I say to him that he should look at DEFRA’s own pronouncements on that, which make the same points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue of chapter 4.5 of the original Independent Scientific Group report and the modelling of spatial patterns of transmission. He said this work is still to be done several years on. We need to get on with doing that. The Secretary of State describes himself on his own website as an expert on bovine TB. We should therefore agree to follow the science, and we need to do that modelling.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the opposition from farmers, the public and others in the west country and the pioneering work of her wildlife trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about the approach in Wales and the ISG remark in respect of the original trials that the cull cannot meaningfully contribute to the eradication of TB. She rightly praised the Labour Welsh Government’s approach in TB-intensive vaccination areas, with 472 landowners taking part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked eloquently about the impact of testing and cattle slaughter on her farmers, and the meetings she has had with farmers, but she strongly advocated a different way forward than a cull. She also talked of the practical difficulties of shooting badgers at night.

[Sarah Champion]

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) twice called me ignorant for using the term “shotguns” in respect of shooting badgers. I draw his attention to the DEFRA document of May this year, “Controlled shooting of badgers in the field under licence to prevent the spread of bovine TB in cattle”. It says on page 2 that the firearms that are authorised are rifles and shotguns.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is a point of clarification, not an intervention. The hon. Lady has made those remarks in the wrong place.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It is important to stick with the facts and what is said in the documents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said the Government had come to their decision through a predetermined sense that a cull is the answer, and he made it clear that the scientific consensus is firmly against a cull as part of a BTB eradication programme. He made the point that a cull could be bad for farmers if it were to make the spread of BTB worse.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) put a coherent alternative strategy with great knowledge and insight, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who noted areas of commonality between the two Front-Bench teams, although we are divided on the issue of the cull.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) has expertise from her position as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. She made a rational, cool-headed contribution, for which I thank her. I thank her, too, for the report, which we will study over the next few days.

The hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke passionately on behalf of farmers, as did the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Sherwood, as, too, did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in speaking for the Ulster Farmers Union—and, as an aside, we note that the various farming unions around the UK are possibly the only unions not routinely denigrated by this Government.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) described the Government as intransigent on this matter, and advocated an alternative approach. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke with great knowledge and in great detail of a different approach that he hopes to pursue in his area and said the balance of best-informed scientific opinion indicates the Government are taking a high risk by having this cull. He made the point that we cannot draw a direct analogy with possums and deer—and not even with Ireland, either. He talked about the wider effect on the rural economy and his work with Professor Rosie Woodroffe on badger vaccinations.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke bravely and with an independent mind, showing again that this is not a party issue. There are differences of opinion within parties. This should be a science-led issue, and she set out why a cull is wrong-headed and why it could make things worse.

What we have from this Government is not evidence-based policy, but policy-based evidence. As leading scientists have observed, the Government have decided on the policy then sought to cherry-pick the evidence to back it up. Bad science is worse than no science at all, so I will try to confine my words to the science and the evidence, strip out the politics and the polemics, and see where the science leads us. Our argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has said, is that this cull is bad for the farmers, bad for badgers and bad for the taxpayer. A cull could actually worsen TB in badger and cattle populations. Field trials showed that although a structured cull could reduce the increase—I repeat, reduce the increase; take the top off the rise—in bovine TB by 16% after nine years, in the short term it could spread the disease further afield as badgers move from the shooting. Hard boundaries or not, there is a risk that the disease will spread through culling, a risk heightened by this untried and untested approach of licensed shooting.

A cull could cost more than an alternative, such as badger vaccination, not least because of the policing costs—the costs the Government were reluctant to reveal, yet which were completely foreseeable. Dr Rosie Woodroffe’s analysis takes the Government’s own cost estimates of badger vaccination at £2,250 per square kilometre per year, compared with the proposed culling costs at £l,000 per square kilometre per year, but adds the policing costs for the cull, which are £l,429 per square kilometre per year. So vaccination becomes the cheaper option. That analysis does not include the additional costs incurred by culling as a result of performing expensive surveys and carrying out monitoring, both before and after. The Government have tried to promote this cull as a cheap solution, but we are finding out again that cheap solutions often turn out to be very expensive indeed. It is the old adage of, “You buy cheap, you pay twice.”

Badger vaccination could be an effective alternative to the cull. We acknowledge the need to do more work on vaccination, but we already know from tests that vaccination reduces the transmission of M. bovis to other badgers and, combined with typical badger mortality of three to five years, there is good reason to expect the impacts on reducing transmission to cattle to be comparable to those from culling. Moreover, because vaccination does not lead to perturbation and is shown to reduce the proportion of infected badgers, rather than increasing it, as culling does and is proven to do, vaccination should have greater long-term prospects for TB eradication. In addition, because vaccination does not prompt protest and does not incur policing costs, it is cheaper to implement than culling. So was it not a great and capital error for the Government to cancel five of the six vaccination trials, instead of using them to test alternative ways forward? We should be fast-tracking the development of oral vaccines now. It is a bad decision, Ministers, and it is bad science.

We need to improve bovine TB testing, improve farm biosecurity, and strengthen cattle movement restrictions. The Government are considering strengthening cattle movements and biosecurity further, a recognition, I hope, that there is much, much more to be done—I hope that the hon. Member for Sherwood will note that the Government are saying that themselves. Professor John Bourne, the vet who led the 10-year, £50 million trial of badger culling under controlled conditions and who has first-hand knowledge of the existing regime, has stated:

“The cattle controls in operation at the moment are totally ineffective”,

with the inaccuracy of bovine TB tests meaning that herds testing negative are actually harbouring the disease—Ministers will know that. He states:

“It’s an absolute nonsense that farmers can move cattle willy-nilly after only two tests. Why won’t politicians implement proper cattle movement controls?”

In short, truly robust risk-based cattle movement control in the UK is not in place, and it is an imperative.

Professor Bourne’s data analysis on the deep and lasting infection in our cattle herds is comprehensive, utterly compelling and utterly stark. So what does the wider informed scientific community say about the cull? Eminent zoologist at Oxford university, president-elect of the British Science Association and, it is fair to say, expert on this subject, Lord Krebs, has criticised the Government for a misleading use of science in support of the cull. He has described the cull by shooting as a “crazy” idea. Thirty of Britain’s finest animal disease scientists wrote in opposition to the cull, describing it as “mindless”. Former Government chief scientific adviser Lord Robert May has said:

“It is very clear that the government’s policy does not make sense.”

Well, at least last October the Government were able to turn to their own chief scientist for support, and I urge hon. Members to listen carefully to what Professor Sir John Beddington said:

“I continue to engage with Defra on the evidence base concerning the development of bovine TB policy. I am content that the evidence base, including uncertainties and evidence gaps, has been communicated effectively to ministers.”

Yes, Minister, “Gaps and uncertainties. Continue to engage. Communicated to ministers”—it is hardly a ringing endorsement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said already, DEFRA Ministers are pressing ahead with a cull based on the unproven shooting of badgers despite leading scientists warning against that “untested and risky approach”. A cull would be bad for badgers, bad for farmers and bad for taxpayers.

We have called this vote to appeal to all parliamentarians who believe in science-led policy, not policy-led science, and who truly want to turn this disease around and eradicate bovine TB. We need improvements to the testing regime, more transparency about herds that have had TB breakdown, a more stringent evidence-led, risk-based policy to manage cattle movements better, urgency from Ministers to develop cost-effective badger vaccination to tackle the disease in wildlife and determined efforts to develop a vaccine to tackle TB in cattle.

It is not too late to halt the cull, and to work with farmers, wildlife groups and others to put in place a strategy that will truly seek to eradicate bovine TB. I urge Members to join us tonight in the Lobby.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right to say that a number of breeds are currently excluded. We will have to work this out as we discuss the new system, but I also hope that he will see the merits of having a centralised database, which we will work through with the passport-issuing authorities.

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

Bore da i chi, Mr Speaker—good morning to you.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has become infamous for U-turns, but now our Eurosceptic Secretary of State has been forced into making an embarrassing EU-turn as a result of the horsemeat scandal. He scrapped the national equine database last year, right in the middle of a tendering process, to save £200,000. Now the European Commission has told him to re-establish a central equine database. How much will it cost to set it up again?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We called a meeting with senior members of the equine sector before we had discussions with the Commission, and we all agreed that the system we inherited from his Government is a mess and badly needs to be improved. He exaggerates the importance of the national equine database as he left it, because it did not contain food chain information. We will work closely with the industry. We have seen success with the dog industry contributing to the microchipping programme, and we will work with the equine industry to see how it can help to build the new database.

Agricultural Wages Board

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On occasions such as this, at the closing of a debate, we often hear words about what a fine debate it has been, what eloquent testimony Members have given and what a fine day it is for Parliament. There have indeed been some very fine contributions today, from both sides of the House, and I will return to some of them in a moment.

Today, however, I have to say that this is not a shining occasion for Parliament. Far from it. It is a disgrace that the Government seem to have been dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight to debate an issue that they seem to want hidden from democratic oversight. That is no fault of yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, but entirely the fault of Ministers. The attempts to curtail debate, or even to bypass the elected House of Commons and the democratic will of the Government in Wales on the matter, have been shameful and truly desperate.

Today, the views of parliamentarians, including Members representing rural areas, will be revealed to their constituents through both the debate and the vote. Their views will be revealed on stripping away the protections of 152,000 workers in England and Wales—protections on pay scales and accommodation; sick pay, holiday pay and overtime; caps on charges for tied accommodation; protections for children under 16 working in the fields; and the simple and basic entitlement of an agricultural worker in a team of workers at the end of a long shift to their own bed—their own bed, for goodness’ sake. The Minister of State has argued that the national minimum wage has changed all that, but he knows that it was in place before he signed an early-day motion warning that the abolition of the AWB would

“impoverish the rural working class”.

We are now in the most preposterous situation. A Liberal Democrat Minister is working, I suspect—he will clarify this—against his own long-held and principled position; against the views and interests of more than 1,000 workers and their families in his constituency, many of whom will have lobbied him in recent weeks and months,; against the views of many smaller, hard-pressed farmers who see the abolition as an increase in complexity in wage negotiations; against the views of the Liberal Democrat lead on rural and environmental issues in Parliament, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), which prompts the question: will the real Lib Dems please step forward?; and in favour of an ideology that could well be one of “beggar the hindmost”.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I have been chairing a meeting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee this afternoon.

I apparently have the largest number of agricultural workers in my constituency, and not many of them have contacted me on this matter. I do not think more than three have done so. Where is the hon. Gentleman getting his information from?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady says she has been contacted by just three, but three is three, and I know for a fact that a large number of Members—many of whom are, for understandable reasons, not present for this debate, but who will, I assume, be passing through the voting Lobby—have been extensively lobbied by agricultural workers in their communities. The question is this: how will they vote today?

In the midst of the economic gloom of Osbornomics—that is a commentators’ phrase—with the economy flat-lining and the rural economy suffering too, the Government’s own figures show that more than a quarter of a billion pounds could be taken out of the rural economy following abolition of the AWB, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) pointed out, we could well add to the burden by increasing rural poverty and the in-work benefits bill to the taxpayer. This is, indeed, the world turned upside down.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Members on the Government Benches have asked what Labour would do when in power in 2015. I know how difficult it will be to pick up the pieces of this appalling mess, but would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I welcome the opportunity to do so, because it has wrongly been said that we have already made up our mind not to re-establish the AWB. When the AWB is abolished, it will, in effect, be shattered into little pieces. Its mechanisms will be entirely taken away, but I will tell my hon. Friend what we will do: Labour has already made clear its proposals under the Fair Work Commission—which I hope Members on the Government Benches will support, even though they opposed the work of the Low Pay Commission, which resulted in the national minimum wage, which they have been praising today. There will be a new commission that will consider our emerging proposals on the rural living wage, extending the remit of gangmaster legislation and tackling the agency workers question, and thereby addressing the undercutting of pay and conditions in local areas. That will no doubt be the arena in which our response to the abolition of the AWB will be developed. I suspect—in fact I can guarantee—that the Government parties will not be carrying out any similar piece of work. [Interruption.]

Any pretensions to respect—[Interruption.] I think Government Members want to know whether we would put the egg together again after they have broken it into a thousand pieces. I hope they understand from what I have just said that many of the proposals we already have in relation to the Fair Pay Commission run completely contrary to the free market, deregulatory ideology, and therefore both the Conservative Secretary of State and the Liberal Democrat Minister would oppose them, but I suspect many of the Minister’s Liberal Democrat friends would support them.

Any pretensions of respect for the views of this democratically elected House and the Welsh Government were ripped apart by this coalition Government when they sought at every opportunity to bypass votes and debate in this House. This proposal should have been taken through in full in what was then the Public Bodies Bill, and then brought back here and fully debated at length in this Chamber—and the issue of the legitimate right of the Welsh Government to be heard should also have been discussed. Instead, the proposal was rushed through a pitiful four-week consultation after the new Secretary of State arrived in post. The majority of respondents to that consultation in England and Wales opposed the abolition of the AWB, but that was ignored.

The proposal was then snuck into Committee in the other place in a different Bill, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which had already left the Commons, thus avoiding the need for any awkward debate here. After heated exchanges, and opposition from bishops, Labour peers and some Cross Benchers, the Lords eventually supported the abolition. When the proposal returned to this House as Lords amendments, we were denied the time and the opportunity to debate it or even to vote on it. So here we are today, in a debate brought by the Labour Opposition.

As we debate this matter today, therefore, the Government have conspired to abolish the AWB through the unelected House of Lords. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Education says “Hear, hear.” He may regard democratically elected representatives so lightly, but we do not; we like to have a say on behalf of our rural, and other, constituents. I ask the Government to think again.

I appeal to all parliamentarians who support the abolition to think again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) appealed to Unionist Conservatives who are concerned about taking a cross-England and Wales approach and about cross-border issues to maintain the AWB. In no way is the hon. Member for St Ives somehow in hoc with union paymasters—contrary to the allegations that have been made against Members this afternoon—or acting at someone else’s behest. He speaks independently as the lead voice for the Liberal Democrat party, as opposed to the Minister, on rural issues. On that basis, what we are seeing is quite fascinating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) called this a living standards debate. He is quite right. He said the proposal did not make economic or moral sense in the 1980s, under former Prime Minister Thatcher, and it does not make sense now either. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) brought some poetry and morality to the debate. He raised the real alternative to abolition, which is further modernisation, which has happened before—a point made also by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods)—and asked the fundamental question: what type of countryside do we want?

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said that fairness was about not just the groceries code adjudicator, but fair pay and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) cited Churchill in defence of the Agricultural Wages Board. As we noted earlier in the debate, even former Prime Minister Thatcher stayed away from abolishing the AWB. There were also great contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and others.

I appeal to all those Lib Dem parliamentarians who long held this as a point of principle and who have been lobbied by their constituents. They should stand with their constituents and with us, support low-paid workers and smaller farmers and stand against rural poverty. I appeal to Conservative MPs who want to speak up for all their constituents, small farmers as well as large, low-paid as well as wealthy. They should be compassionate, one nation Tories, not just the representatives of the wealthy and the powerful in the countryside. If I cannot appeal to their better nature, let me appeal to their baser political instinct—not least those whose parliamentary majorities are smaller than the number of agricultural workers in the constituencies affected, such as the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and many others.

I am glad we have had this debate. Some have commented that it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. That is no fault of ours, but when the vote comes, people will see where Members stand on a fair rural community, fair wages and fair conditions for everyone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

How I wish that I had a pair of the Minister’s rose-tinted spectacles. In fact, the Government’s national economic strategy is shot; rural growth is further constrained by inflation running at double the national average, higher costs of living and working; and the slow roll-out of rural broadband is leading to open warfare around the Cabinet table. How does the Minister believe that taking another quarter of a billion pounds out of the rural economy and the pockets of low-paid farm workers by scrapping the Agricultural Wages Board will jump-start the rural economy?

[Mr Heath]

I spent 13 years on the Opposition Benches trying to press the case for rural areas. The then Labour Government did not listen to what was said in rural areas then, and I note that the hon. Gentleman is not listening now to the realities of what is happening in those areas and the realities of what is happening in the agricultural industry. If he did, he would take a very different position.

Responsible Dog Ownership

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on an excellent opening contribution to a wide-ranging debate, and I also thank all other hon. Members who have taken part in it. Let me point out not only the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, but the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). Although my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) was not called, she has taken part in many of these debates before. They are all fine campaigners on the issue. Hon. Members on the Government Benches have also been in these debates before. We have been here before. The need to tackle irresponsible dog ownership has been a consistent theme during the past three years.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) rightly said that it is not the case that dog attacks never took place before the current Government came to power, but we do know that in the final months of the Labour Administration, a consultation was set up specifically to consider the issue. It reported on 1 June 2010, and here we are now, nearly three years later, almost going into the fourth year of this Government.

I genuinely say to the Minister that I welcome the announcements that have been made. We do. We want to support him, but we sometimes feel—to stretch the analogy a bit—like a trusty old Welsh sheepdog, trying to herd the Home Office and DEFRA Ministers through the gate that is clearly identifiable at the other end of the field. The darn sheep keep wandering off into the long grass; they keep being distracted. We want to get the measures implemented. We want to move away from the good words and away from what I have to say are re-announcements. Many of the things we heard a couple of weeks ago were re-announcements.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for kindly giving way. Is it not the case that it is not just Labour Members who feel frustrated? Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel frustrated because we have not seen any movement since the consultation closed in June 2010. We are speaking on behalf of all our constituents who are affected. My constituent, Angela McGlynn, lost a child. She desperately wants action from the Government and instructed me to come here today on her behalf, to say, “Please—when is this action coming forward?”

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly on behalf of her constituent and all the others. We are talking about families who have lost loved ones, in her constituency and elsewhere, in traumatic situations; families who have been attacked and owners of guide dogs and companion dogs who have been attacked. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned dogs that are out of control in rural areas. All those issues have to do with irresponsible ownership, rather than the type of dog. That is why, although we welcome the announcements and, indeed, the re-announcements that have been made, there is an element of frustration, which has been relayed in the debate today. We are saying, “Get on with it.” We will support the measures. We will rally behind the Government to the nth degree to get things done.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who has great experience of the issue, raised the possibility of the Minister beginning discussions on the overall issue of the dog legislation that is in place—a theme that was picked up by other hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury, but we are in year 3 and going into year 4 of this Government. We would have preferred to be doing things now and getting on with it. It is not as though we have been quiet on the issue. It is not as though the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, the CWU, the Royal College of Nursing, the Police Federation and others have been quiet; they have all been very streamlined on the issue.

One of the big problems previously was that Ministers would say, understandably, “Well, there isn’t any agreement.” Actually, there has been a tremendous amount of agreement. It is rare to get this level of agreement, and it extends to such things as dog control notices. It extends to saying that we should have a fundamental look at the overall complexity of the legislation and whether it should be overhauled. There is agreement on microchipping. I say to the Minister, “Go on. We’ll rally behind you on this. We need to do it. Let’s keep the cost low and the burden minimal. Let’s ensure that it works, that it’s efficient, that the technology is right and that the databases are secure and actually talk to one another.” Yes, there are technical issues, but let us get on with it. Let us deal with the internet trading and backstreet trading. Let us deal with the strays and the resulting kennelling costs for local authorities, the police and others. Thousands upon thousands of dogs are euthanised every year. That is appalling in a society that purports to love its animals—a pet-owning nation.

What is going wrong? It is a classic market failure in many ways. There is demand for the breeding of dogs and for the selling of dogs on the internet. There is demand for illicit trading in dogs. We must step in and take control. We must ensure that resources are in place and that there is enforcement. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, in his very good contribution, made the point well about enforcement, but enforcement carries resource implications. Whether local authorities, police or charities are doing the work, we need to find a way to do more with less—to pick up the phrase of the day—but also to ensure that enforcement is happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck did a tremendous job of highlighting the challenges ahead. He talked about the £57 million a year of kennelling costs for local authorities. He talked about the cost to the police of kennelling dogs. More than 100,000 dogs stray, or are lost or stolen every year. Six thousand dogs are put down every year. What a tragedy that is in terms of animal welfare. There is also the impact on local authorities and others. There are attacks on communication workers, social care workers, home visitors and so on. It is an absolute tragedy. There are 5,000 attacks on postal workers every year. There was a 12% increase in the number of warnings issued by the RSPCA to dog owners last year because of poor welfare.

What is going on? It may be a result of the economic times we are in. I do not know. Certainly when I visit Battersea Dogs and Cats Home or other organisations, they tell me that more dogs are being abandoned, and it is not just breeds that are perceived to be dangerous; dogs across the board are being left. They are being tied to lamp posts; they are being left at shopping centres for someone to come along and pick up. There are major implications in what is happening, but I say quite genuinely to the Minister that he has our support in taking action, as well as saying the words.

We need to get on with it. There have been calls from hon. Members today for the Government to set out a timetable. As a former Minister, I am familiar with the form of words, “When parliamentary time allows”, but I am also familiar with Ministers then coming to this Chamber or to the main Chamber and saying, “What I mean by that is that we will do it within this parliamentary Session. We’ll have to work with the Whips; we’ll have to work through the usual channels, but we will do it.” That is the sort of commitment we are looking for. We want to know that action will be taken and when. We want to know when the Minister will ask us for our support—to wade in on his side.

[Michael Connarty]

I know that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is trying to persuade the Government, rather than chastise them, but surely there is a major problem in this respect: if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have introduced or are introducing dog control notices and the Dogs Trust offers, at £20 a year, proper liability insurance for dog owners, should the Government not bring in those notices in England, and also make it compulsory for dog owners to insure their dogs under a scheme such as the one I mentioned so that victims can be compensated?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend raises a very good question for the Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, if Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can do it—the reforms are of different types, but they are moving ahead on the issue—why cannot England? My hon. Friend said that fundamental question remains today; we are still at the same point.

I tabled written questions for the Minister. I asked, pursuant to the statement that he made, whether the Government planned

“to bring forward in this parliamentary Session an amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to allow for the prosecution of attacks that take place on private property.”

The response from the Minister was:

“I will answer the question as soon as possible.”

Today is a good opportunity to do that. I also asked whether the Government planned

“to bring forward in this parliamentary Session amendments to existing legislation to allow for the introduction of compulsory microchipping in England.”

The Minister responded:

“I will answer the question as soon as possible.”

Again, today is a tremendous opportunity for the Minister to make clear when he will do that. We are looking to rally behind him. He will know that despite the initial warm response, there have been criticisms, from Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, that the plans do not go far enough. I look forward to his response, including a definite timetable, so that across the parties we can rally behind action, not just words.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is highlighting the misconceptions. The Office of Fair Trading is already able to enforce a grocery code of practice. It is already in place. It is not being introduced by this Bill. The code of practice already exists under the auspices of the OFT. If the hon. Gentleman has any concerns about how supermarkets are operating with regard to their suppliers, he can take his complaint to the OFT and ask it to investigate it. The adjudicator is not supposed to introduce a new code of practice, although we fear that they might. The code of practice already exists. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of supermarkets breaking the code of practice, I would be happy for him to come forward and tell me about it. If anybody has evidence of supermarkets breaking the code of practice, let us hear about it today and we can all decide what the best course of action is. However, there is no evidence that the code of practice is being breached.

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

With all due respect, the hon. Gentleman fails to understand one of the fundamental points that was made in Committee, which is that many of the examples of abuse in the supply chain concern primary producers who are literally afraid of coming forward. That is why the anonymity and protection of those producers is built into the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is basically highlighting that he can give no examples of abuses of the groceries code of practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes his point. As it happens, I am a Conservative. I know it is an old-fashioned view these days in the Conservative party, but I believe in the free market. Companies such as Asda, Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s are big enough to look after themselves. They do not need a referee to look after a contract on their behalf against any supplier; big companies are more than capable of doing that themselves. My hon. Friend may take the point that it is the role of Parliament to intervene in every contract negotiation between two companies.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second. I will deal with this intervention and then give way to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood may think that the role of this House is to intervene in all sorts of contract disputes. Why limit it to supermarkets? There are lots of industries where one big person negotiates deals with a smaller supplier; it does not just happen in the supermarket trade. It seems to me that my hon. Friend is arguing for a total business ombudsman looking at every negotiated contract. That is not the kind of country I want to live in; it is certainly not what I consider to be Conservative.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. New clauses 1, 2 and 3 lay his cards on the table; essentially, they support the free market option. That is what they are about, regardless of the technicalities. Did he listen to Radio 4, as I did the other morning, when Billy Bragg was being interviewed? He made the comment that when we leave everything to the free market we end up with horsemeat.

[Philip Davies]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the free market—that is why he sits on the Labour side of the House. I have no quibble with Opposition Members agreeing with this nonsensical Bill. He was elected to try and introduce this kind of interventionist nonsense. What I object to is Government Members believing in this kind of stuff. I have no quibble with him believing it.

[Philip Davies]

In a Westminster Hall debate I heard one of my hon. Friends, who is in favour of the Bill, make it abundantly clear that he thought the adjudicator would have nothing to do, and that it would, in effect, be a sinecure post. The adjudicator would just be there in case he was needed at some point. It is unnecessary, and I do not believe in creating unnecessary bureaucracies. They end up empire building. They start off small and targeted, but of course once they find out that they have nothing to do they find something to do, even when it is not necessary.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Andrew George]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am slightly concerned that the hon. Gentleman has been diverted from the path of virtue on which he embarked some minutes ago. He was talking specifically about his new clauses, but he has since taken a series of interventions that, in a sense, have caused the debate to elide into a Second Reading consideration of the merits or otherwise of adjudicators and so on. I know that he will want to return to the terms of his new clauses, on which, of course, he can expand at such length as he sees fit, as I am sure he will. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Just before that, I call Mr Huw Irranca-Davies on a point of order.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be of some help to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and to you, as Speaker, to be aware that the new clauses refer specifically to the groceries supply code, but many of the elements that he is introducing into his speech have no connection with the groceries supply code. The companies to which he refers might supply supermarkets, but they do not fall within the remit of the groceries supply code.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he is seeking to be helpful, but I thought I had myself made the point perfectly adequately that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would wish to return to the terms of his new clauses, which are themselves entirely orderly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We could make the same argument across government; if crime starts to fall in an area, do we withdraw the police because they are not necessary? We have to have a referee to make sure that the rules are being obeyed. The groceries code adjudicator will be a great referee and will have the teeth to make sure that the Goliath does not bully the David. That is something that the Government should be proud of and take forward to bring a little parity and common sense to the market.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am pleased to speak in this debate and I welcome the speeches that have been made so far. I did not expect it to be as sparky as it has been, but I welcome that because it allows us to flush out the arguments about the amendments and new clauses, as well as the fundamental principles of what we are trying to achieve.

I did not intend to speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 3, but I wish to reiterate the comments made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) and others. A great deal of discussion in Committee focused on the fact that the adjudicator’s office will intentionally be small, mean and lean. It will not be some behemoth, as the hon. Members who spoke to new clauses 1, 2 and 3 suggested it would be. It is supposed to be an intelligent organisation that does not go on fishing expeditions but responds to good intelligence. I suspect that if there are no cases to follow, the report will be very slim indeed. I suspect that the adjudicator will not respond to Procter & Gamble or anyone else if they are asked, “Please look at the power relationship within the supply chain and how we are being disgracefully abused.”

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) spoke to new clauses 1, 2 and 3 at great length. New clause 3 gives the reality to the mission, which is at a set moment in time to get rid of the adjudicator, which would fly in the face of the advice that has come down over years from the Competition Commission and others that there is a need for such an adjudicator. Lean and mean, yes, but the hon. Member for Shipley should have some faith in the adjudicator and, having advertised the position and given her the power and set up the office on a lean, mean basis, he should allow her to decide where to investigate to achieve a good, efficient supply chain.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman seemed to be criticising me for moving my new clause at great length. Does he accept that I spoke at great length because I took such a large volume of interventions, not least from him?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am in no way being critical of speaking at great length. I can extemporise for the nation myself on occasions. I do not criticise the length of time and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to expound his arguments. I have no doubt that he and colleagues who spoke in support of his new clauses believe firmly in what he was saying and believe that we should have much more of what he regards as a free market. I am not anti-free market. The hon. Gentleman may not realise it, but I spent six years working in the private sector running leisure centres, theatres and so on. I understand how the free market works. I have worked within it as a manager and as a business person. I am opposed to the approach that says that we can beggar our neighbour or have a race to the bottom.

The hon. Member for Shipley challenged Members to go and explain to their constituents why they would argue against the cheapest possible price. I will not argue that we should have the cheapest price for every product on a supermarket shelf if that means sacrificing much-needed employment protection such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or sacrificing the standards in British agriculture of which we are rightly proud, such as animal welfare standards and so on. His argument that we should provide the very cheapest by lowering standards on food safety, food provenance, nutrition or employment rights is the argument that has previously exposed to their detriment multinational companies when they have been caught out for exploitation or low standards. We have only to think back, in a wholly different sector, to some years ago and to Nike in the previous World Cup when the very footballs on the field were being produced in sweatshop conditions in developing countries. Was that to its benefit?

I want to speak to our amendments 34 and 35, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and myself. Another illustration, if the House wants a more recent case, is the issue of food provenance and safety. No hon. Member can seriously argue that the commercial pressures along a complex supply chain have had no bearing on the entry of significant levels of adulterated meat. That is where a pure free market ideology will take us, and that is why I stand out firmly against the spirit in which the new clauses were tabled.

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points, and I want to support them by gently reminding him that new clause 2 will prevent the adjudicator from supporting those very multinational companies that he seeks to name and shame.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has intrigued me. Let us say that a larger operator over the turnover steps forward to the adjudicator with evidence that does not affect it directly but affects a series of smaller suppliers right down the chain. Does he seriously suggest that the adjudicator should not be able to take action on that? I trust the adjudicator to follow the evidence and identify the power relationship if the supply chain is being abused. If the evidence comes from a larger operator, all to the good. I want the adjudicator to step in and take the right action.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to protect all within the food supply chain? I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland and I am conscious of the dysfunctionality in that chain in relation to food prices, but also now in relation to food provenance and labelling.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady is right. She speaks to the spirit and the letter of the amendments, to which I will now turn my attention. Amendments 34 and 35 are critical in view of what has passed before our eyes in the time since the Bill left Committee.

As hon. Members will know, last week Sodexho, one of the biggest catering firms in the UK and indeed in Europe, which supplies processed meat to schools, hospitals and our armed forces, withdrew all its frozen beef products after discovering adulteration with horsemeat. This is where the race to the bottom and the aim to be the cheapest of all lead us, when the cost of horsemeat going into mince is a quarter of that of good British beef, without appropriate regulation—and enforcement of that regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

It is important that people understand what that advice is and what the data suggest. It has been set out very clearly by the chief medical officer, and I do not want anyone to go away from this debate believing that one in 20,000 people are subject to serious medical consequences from consuming bute. It is clear that the highest level that could be found in food products is, by a factor of thousands—by a factor of 10³—lower than that shown to have any adverse consequences for human health. Moreover, those adverse consequences affect only a very small proportion of people receiving pharmaceutical doses of the drug. It is very important that we understand the risk factors, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent them.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that we do not want to continue this debate and that the hon. Gentleman is desperate to get back to the subject of the amendment.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Absolutely. I make the point to illustrate how important this amendment is in terms of food safety and provenance. I just want to correct the record. The Minister said that it was one in 20,000, but it is roughly one in 2,000. I repeat to the Minister that the advice given directly to the Government was that there is a possibility of adverse effects—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Do not test my patience any more. We can both agree that you are desperate to speak to the amendment and now you are going to go back to it. We do not want to have to bring someone else in just yet, do we?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am happy that I have made the case extensively.

[Sir James Paice]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I would love to give way to the right hon. Gentleman as long as he does not seek to draw me in to contravening your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Sir James Paice]

I do not know why on earth the hon. Gentleman thinks that I might want to draw him into confrontation with you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on a more fundamental aspect of the amendments. In an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that the whole Bill is about enforcement of the grocery code of practice. I understand his wanting to raise the horsemeat scandal whenever he can, but does he really believe that these amendments—especially amendment 34, which would require the adjudicator to report on issues of food safety, food hygiene and food authenticity—fall within the code of practice? He is proposing to extend dramatically the power of the adjudicator and the role of this legislation way beyond anything that the Competition Commission ever envisaged.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for not tempting me to infringe the guidance you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We had a great deal of debate in Committee on the ability of the groceries code adjudicator to comment on several issues concerning the supply chain. In fact, on both sides of the House, several hon. Members said that if the adjudicator were aware of abuses elsewhere they would expect the adjudicator to inform the relevant authorities. I shall be interested in the Government’s response to the amendment, but I would have thought that there was almost an obligation on the adjudicator to report any observed abuse in the management of the supply chain. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South that amendments 34 and 35 are important, and we are convinced that the adjudicator should have an eye to this function as well as his or her core role on the supply chain.

[Mr Chope]

I support new clause 2. In most people’s eyes the Bill was designed essentially to protect the UK supplier, particularly of fresh produce, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said. What the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just delivered is a scaremongering speech designed to undermine British suppliers of fresh meat and produce. That is extremely regrettable.

Last night I attended a speech given by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). His speech was entitled, “Deregulation for Growth”. I must admit to being slightly confused about what I have heard so far during this debate, because it seems to be about regulation. How, I ask the Minister, will the Bill be consistent with the Government’s growth agenda? Perhaps she will tell us when she responds.

The Minister last night said that there was a two-for-one principle—that for every £1 of additional burden imposed through regulation, £2 of savings of regulation had to be found. That brings me to new clauses 4 and 5, which are designed to highlight the fact that the Bill as drafted will embody the law of unintended consequences writ large. It will potentially benefit suppliers not only from elsewhere in Europe, but from right across the globe, when most people who support the Bill think they are doing so in order to help the farmer down the road in the United Kingdom. That is far from the case. What will happen is that the Bill will enable suppliers from overseas to exploit our system, at a time when our own suppliers and producers are not able to access overseas markets on an equivalent basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I applaud the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for their handling of the Bill. They gave way in areas where there was compelling evidence and pressure to do so; they resisted in areas where they felt it appropriate to do so. That is what Ministers should do while we keep pushing hard on issues that we think they should listen to and argue strongly against. They have been sympathetic. They have not given way on everything, but the Bill is improved and I commend them for the way that they have stewarded it.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his thanks to me to allow me to put on the record my thanks to the officials Iain, Heeran and Richard, who have served us so excellently, and to thank them also for their Christmas present to me of some plastic teeth to go with the cuddly dog and tiger for my office.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am glad I gave way to give the Minister the opportunity to convey her thanks to the officials.

I thank our Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whose role has been significantly underplayed. He has worked extremely hard both on the Front Bench and behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. I thank the Committee members, many of whom volunteered to serve on the Committee because of their specific interest in the Bill. That is highly commendable. Tribute has rightly been paid to the contribution down the years of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). It is a great day that they now see the Bill going on to the statute book.

The external organisations that lobbied so hard are too numerous to mention, but the British Retail Consortium, Action Aid, War on Want and all the farmers unions from every part of the United Kingdom all played a tremendous role, as did many others that I do not have time to name.

We wish the adjudicator well and hope they never have to name and shame, impose fines or carry out an investigation. We hope their very presence will instil a discipline within the supply chain, but if not, the remedy now exists.

Horsemeat

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I was not necessarily intending to speak at any great length, but I have been inspired by the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I congratulate him on making such an excellent speech so early in his parliamentary career. I am not sure that in my 15 years here I have quite achieved the expertise that he has in a few months. It was a most useful introduction to an important and interesting debate.

I took issue with the hon. Gentleman to a degree, because in discussing a cross-party issue he strayed slightly into party political issues, blaming the Government and everything to do with them for an appalling incident over Christmas, when horsemeat was found in supermarket burgers. I am not certain that Government cuts to local authorities and the other things that he listed can necessarily be directly blamed, and I felt that that was an unfortunate part of the speech. Overall, however, he made an extremely important point—that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) pointed out, even the smallest traces of DNA in a burger could damage consumer confidence to an extraordinary degree. That has happened before, such as in the Edwina Currie and eggs episode, with beef and on other occasions since then.

The slightest hint that supermarket burgers might not be up to scratch could lead to a disproportionate effect on the burger and supermarket industries, and therefore on farmers. I speak particularly on behalf of farmers in my constituency where there is significant beef production. I pay tribute, in passing, to McDonald’s, which now sources all its beef from UK sources. That was a worthwhile thing to do, and it would be appalling if confidence in the excellent McDonald’s product—I hold no brief for McDonald’s—were to be undermined by the unfortunate incident that has occurred.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making a very good speech. Local food provenance is important, because among EU nations the UK is unique: it has the highest proportion of food retail—and beverages—from sales from shops and restaurants. That is very important, so trading standards are critical. Even in the past month, trading standards in the south-west found lamb kebabs, which everyone likes to get when it is late, on the way home, containing chicken, beef, poultry and other assorted goodies. It is important to keep local trading standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I start by declaring an interest as a producer of beef and sheep, but not horses. The last time I sold a horse was when it was outgrown by my daughter, which was before passports were introduced.

I commend the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) for obtaining this debate. Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason why such debates are well attended or not so well attended, but he has been rather ill served today because he has introduced a subject of great interest both to the House and to the public outside.

A range of organisations and people across the country are looking to the Government to ensure that confidence is re-established in food, particularly meat products and burgers. Not only farmers and food producers, but food manufacturers, food retailers and consumers must have confidence so that our food industry, which has been of a high standard, maintains that high standard and goes on to improve.

The hon. Gentleman did a good job of breaking down some of the issues that have been conflated by other people. The excellent work in the Irish Republic to identify the matter has raised a number of issues, the first of which is contamination. Some food manufacturers’ processes are not as good as they could be, and they use machinery that has been used to make pork products to produce a beef burger without cleaning the equipment well enough, so that some pork residue ends up in the beef product. That can be of huge consequence to people whose religion teaches that they should not eat pork, so it is of great significance to us.

The other issue occurs when large amounts of cheaper product are introduced into another product in order to reduce the cost, and the product is not described accurately on the label. That is food adulteration, and it is as old as the food industry itself. When commodity prices are high, people will always cast around for a cheaper alternative to put into their products. There is no real problem with doing so, as long as it is made clear to the whole supply chain so that people know what is in the product. In this case, it was a complete deception, possibly by the supplier of the meat, which it is suggested originally came from Poland. The supplier had a duty to make that clear to the Irish who bought it, and so on down the supply chain.

It is a difficult issue. The food manufacturing business is this country’s biggest manufacturing sector, and it is sometimes overlooked as simple or primitive. I do not mean that in a derogatory way; it does not have the same great initiatives and research as some of the other sectors, but it fulfils an important purpose.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good and intelligent contribution to this debate. I suggest that one thing that has changed in how we source and identify our meat and trace ingredients is the increasing globalisation of the meat market, both inside and outside the EU, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. For that reason, adulterated meat, which he says is a problem that is as old as the hills, is of greater concern now, particularly when it can involve imports from Argentina, North America or elsewhere into the EU market, and possibly into the UK thereafter. We must be even more stringent.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman, because he is aware of these matters, will know that if meat or any other foodstuff is imported into the European Union, it must come through a port and be inspected, but if meat is transferred between European Union nations, it is expected that each nation will have done the appropriate tests and is confident that the product is as described and is safe. Safety is key.

During food manufacturing, a lot of products are taken out and put in. One of the simplest examples is bread. Some or all of the bran is removed from wheat to make flour, and then chemicals are added, particularly nutrients to prevent birth defects. We agree that those additions to wheat are a good thing, but we must ensure that other things added to our food products maintain safety.

Trading standards and the Food Standards Agency have been mentioned, as have this country’s public health bodies. The key issue is to have joined-up working between those organisations locally, in policy making and in ensuring that all the necessary tests are done to maintain food safety in this country.

We must stand up and say that Britain has a remarkable record on food safety. When issues have been identified, Governments of all persuasions have been ready to take action to ensure that consumers are safeguarded. I am sure that this Government will be no different in taking such action, and I have every confidence that they will do so.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) on securing this debate, which is of vital concern not only for food production but for manufacturing and processing. It affects every constituency in the UK; I doubt that there is a single one that does not have jobs related to food manufacturing and processing. As the Minister will know, it is one of the largest employment areas in the UK economy, but is often overlooked. It is important to get food provenance and consumer confidence in the sector right, and to ensure that what is written on the label is accurate.

As my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, this debate should focus on restoring confidence after a scare within the industry and among consumers, but in order to do so, we need complete and utter transparency. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams); in the past couple of decades, we have become increasingly rigorous in inspecting and testing meat, in terms of slaughter and processing. However, we also need candour, not only about the successes in the sector and in implementation across the EU but about potential failings. If we do not do so—if we try to conceal issues that might be of concern—we have learned nothing from previous scare stories that have caused a run on consumer confidence and hit the economy of the food processing sector. It is vital to be honest with consumers, ourselves and industry in order to restore and maintain confidence.

That might be uncomfortable, but before I begin, let me highlight, as I am sure the Minister will do in his speech, the importance of the sector. The meat processing and slaughter sector in the UK involves more than 300 businesses and contributes more than £4 billion in revenue and turnover. In the European Union, of which we are still a member nation at the moment, the meat processing sector employs 48 million people, and here in the UK it employs 1.25 million. It is economically important, but consumer confidence is equally important. People need to know that what they eat is what is described on the package.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. His point about confidence is of the greatest concern to many Muslim and Jewish consumers in my constituency and across the country. Although, as we know, none of the products recalled was labelled as kosher or halal, the case has unfortunately eroded confidence more widely. Does he not think that it is crucial to rebuild confidence in the industry?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a critical point. There are technical issues that we need to consider and ask the Minister to deal with, but fundamentally, consumers might overlook much of that technical detail. They want to know exactly what the Government, the Food Standards Agency, individual food processors and manufacturers and supermarkets are doing to give utter confidence to the nth degree, so that they know what they are purchasing, whether in a local takeaway or restaurant, a supermarket or elsewhere. In a moment I will mention some ways in which we might want to deal with that.

I should like to discuss some salient points that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North mentioned, including on the fragmentation of the labelling system between three different areas and the cuts to the FSA budget, from £143 million to £132 million by 2014-15. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments about how he can avoid those cuts having any impact at all on front-line testing. The National Audit Office states that Government funding is falling substantially. Unison has some views on the matter, too.

I do not think that hon. Members have mentioned the detection of bute, or any other substance, whether in trace elements or otherwise—an issue that has recently emerged. The interesting response from the FSA, when this matter was pushed, was that it could provide reassurance that none of the animals slaughtered in which bute was identified were put into the human consumption chain within the UK. It is, of course, illegal to put such animals into the human food chain. However, five animals were identified later as having been subsumed into the food chain in another country in the EU. In light of comments made during this debate about integration and the fact that food now does not necessarily go straight from farm to fork—it could go through various stages of processing—it is interesting to note that food produced in this country that was tested and identified as containing bute, albeit with trace elements, entered the human food chain somewhere in the EU. Whether in respect of bute or any other substances, can we give consumers confidence that, in that spider’s web of food processing networks, nothing containing those substances is re-entering the UK for consumption?

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. He has been doing some work on bute. Animals receive many other medicines as well and not all of them can be tested, but there is a process involving withdrawal periods, whereby animals should not be slaughtered within so many weeks of such medicines being administered. Quality is assured on that basis.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to mention the Government’s own veterinary advice, although I was not going to mention it. The veterinary residues committee, which advises the Government, has repeatedly identified concerns about trace elements of bute, or other substances, in horses coming into the slaughter process in the UK, although not entering the human food chain. That committee identified a failing in the system, regarding the veterinary process and the horse passport, which has been mentioned. Horse passports are fragmented now over more than 70 organisations.

[Mr Gray]

Just to correct the hon. Gentleman on a small point, it is not a matter of fragmentation. When the Labour Government introduced horse passports, there were 93 passport-issuing authorities and that number has been reduced to 75. So it is nothing to do with fragmentation. The system was flawed before it started.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

This is fascinating, because that was why we introduced the national equine database, which centralised data in accordance with European regulations to do with horse passports and aspects of safety in the supply chain. I ask the Minister how, in the absence of the NED, he can assure himself about issues to do with passporting, when there is a report showing that there is concern about double passporting. Vets must be much more rigorous in ensuring that a non-passported horse is not entering the food chain. I will cite the report if the Minister would like me to.

[Mr Gray]

Double passporting and fraud would occur whether or not there was a national equine database; that would not prevent it. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on a factual point. The NED was not set up by the Government. It was a private not-for-profit company, run by private individuals—directors—to which the Government provided some small subsidy. It did not cost the Government much at all. It was a private company that never worked, and I am glad it has been abolished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister was always opposed to the NED and spoke openly about his opposition to it and his wish to get rid of it. However, it provided a central database, as required under European legislation, which allowed for cross-referencing of records. I will not dwell on that any more or take any more interventions on it, because it is a matter for a separate debate.

On the industry’s response, at one point there was a suggestion that the transparency that I am calling for was unnecessary and that reassurances should be offered. That is not the view of Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers Union, who said:

“The events of the past few days have severely undermined confidence in the UK food industry and farmers are rightly angry that the integrity of stringent UK-farmed products is being compromised by using cheaper imported alternatives”.

John Sleith, the chairman of the Society for Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland, said:

“We note that statements are being made that it is not a health issue, but our concern is that there is no information on how the horse meat came to be in the burgers and so there is no way of telling whether the meat is safe to eat, it could be from diseased or injured animals, for example.”

What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office about this matter? We know—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be well aware—that there have been suggestions in recent weeks, as this matter has come to light, that it may not simply be an issue of adulteration, whether in Poland or elsewhere. Criminal gangs may be involved. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said that this issue was as old as the hills, but it has tended to be localised in many ways. If there is a serious criminal gang operation involved, that will be a major concern.

I have spoken to people who work in the UK slaughter trade—they are doing a fine job and are proud of the standards in the industry—who tell me of their concerns about adulteration. An individual mentioned to me in a conversation yesterday that they were sympathetic to Tesco and the other big retailers, because Tesco, for example, does spot checks and checks the veracity of its supply chain. However, the adulteration of food happens the moment that it leaves. That is a concern, because the information comes from people working in the industry.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the illegal meat trade has always involved criminal activity. Some of us were involved in trying to prevent the import of bush meat into this country, which was run by criminal gangs. It has been going on forever and I am sure that criminality is still part of the illegal meat trade.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed, hence my insistence on doing more. It is not sufficient just to say, “We have checks in place.” We need to do more.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my praise for an announcement made by Tesco this morning, about its introduction of its own self-funded, comprehensive system of DNA testing for meat products. That innovation is welcome; there should be more of that sort of thing, which the NFU and others are calling for. We need to be far more rigorous than we used to be, and such innovations show us how we can do that. It is not the same world as it was 20 years ago.

It is not only me saying that double passporting is a matter of concern. With no central database to facilitate checks, it is now possible for a horse to be issued with two passports, one in which medication is recorded and an apparently clean one to be presented at the time of slaughter, allowing the medicated horse to be passed as fit for consumption. Hamish McBean, chairman of the National Beef Association, has said:

“It is obvious that here in the UK consumers, quite rightly, have high regard for the excellence and integrity of beef produced on British farms and that British beef is their favoured purchase.”

He is flagging up exactly the same issue.

[Mr Gray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I would prefer not to take an intervention, because a separate debate is needed on the matter and I am up against time, but okay.

[Mr Gray]

I am extremely interested in the whole topic of horse passports, but it is a diversion and a red herring in the debate. Only one abattoir in the United Kingdom kills horses, and it kills nothing apart from horses—it is a pure horse abattoir. In the recent scandal, no one has suggested that something going wrong in the British abattoir system was to blame. That meat could have come from anywhere in the world; as the hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out, it could have been internationally sourced. The notion that we should somehow undermine the credibility of the British abattoir system because of apparent cross-contamination seems entirely fallacious. A small number of horses are killed in Britain, and there is no suggestion that the abattoir that does it is guilty of the cross-contamination in the recent case.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Another debate is needed, but I can cite root and branch opinion, including from members of DEFRA’s own equine expert groups, on the necessity of a central database to deal with controls and stringency on passports.

To move on to my fundamental point, the issue is not only a UK one. In recent weeks and months, we have had warnings over dyed pork sold as beef; in Sweden, meat imported from Argentina and sold as beef turned out to be other meat products; in Spain, in recent days, a similar horsemeat scandal to ours has been unravelling. As I mentioned earlier, trading standards are now picking up adulterated meat issues locally, not only in supermarkets but in takeaway shops and restaurants.

I am interested in the Minister’s comments on whether the country of origin labelling proposals before the European Parliament and Commission—due to be resolved this year—provide an opportunity for more stringent labelling. The NFU, the National Beef Association and others are keen on that. When something is marketed as British beef, it is really important to know that it is sourced and produced in Britain, not transported from somewhere in the EU, potentially with adulteration, and that it is only processed in Britain before being put on the shelves.

In the Minister’s response, will he deal with the fundamental issues of adulteration, which are not UK issues only? Does he have any evidence on whether adulteration is going on more widely in the supply chain and, potentially, in the EU market, and what lines of inquiry is he pursuing? What additional steps is he taking to tackle the issue, in the UK and in the EU? Does that involve discussions at EU level? Does it involve further discussions with the supermarkets about following today’s example of Tesco on DNA testing? Has he had any discussions whatever with the Home Office on the criminality involved in the sector, whether in food adulteration or in horse passports, in order to get horsemeat into the food chain?

The issue is vital, and I know that the Minister wants to give complete confidence. We are forthright about our concern on the subject, as are the NFU, the National Beef Association and people who believe in provenance labelling such as red tractor labelling. They are concerned about the matter not only because of its economic importance but because they want to give people long-lasting confidence, in the very different age we now live in, so that they know exactly what they are eating and can trust what is said on the labels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am sure that that is absolutely true, as it is of other retailers. Waitrose, for instance, wished to point out that its contracts require its own-label burgers to be made on the first run in the morning, to ensure that there is no cross-contamination from other products later in the day. Retailers take the matter terribly seriously, and we should not give the impression that they do not, because that would be a false impression.

Ultimately, however, the Irish authorities did pick up a serious example of adulteration, and I congratulate them on that and on communicating the facts to us, so that we and others have been able to work closely with them to investigate what happened. While I do not diminish the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) about those whose religious dietary requirements may be affected, the trace findings of porcine and equine DNA elsewhere were a much lower level of contamination than the burger containing 29% horsemeat, which appears to have been a case not of cross-contamination but of deliberate substitution.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

One confidence restorer that consumers will expect is that those responsible for the current adulteration will face the full weight of the law. People should not be let off the hook. There has been an element of pointing the finger further and further down the supply chain. If a processor in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere did not follow due diligence down the supply chain and used an unauthorised supplier, I hope that they will be prosecuted—I am interested in the Minister’s comments on this—by the supermarkets and others because of vicarious liability for negligence down the supply chain. Someone is responsible, and the finger should not be pointed to the nth degree at someone in Poland if some culpability lies within the supply chain in the Republic.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman must be careful to distinguish between prosecution and litigation. Civil litigation may follow—I do not know—if there is prima facie evidence. When I responded in the House to an urgent question, I said that it seemed to me, without being in possession of all the facts in Ireland, that there was a possibility of criminality. That is a matter for the Irish authorities, and it would be absolutely wrong of me to assume any responsibility or to encourage the Irish in one way or another in their prosecution policy. However, they will no doubt consider whether fraud has taken place, and trace the perpetrators, whether they are the supplier in Poland, as it seems if their tracing is correct, or the people in Ireland who took receipt of the meat. That is for the Irish to decide, and I cannot interfere in that process. I can only express a view, which I think is shared by many people, that if criminal activity takes place on something as important as the food that people eat, we should use whatever powers are available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The distinction I was trying to make for the hon. Gentleman—I accept that he has been given figures—is between the number of samples and the number of tests. The samples have gone down, and that is what I think he is quoting. In 2009-10, there were 105,556 samples—and that is down—on the local authority side, to 78,653 in 2010-11. That is the diminution that he refers to, but the number of tests done on them has gone up to 92,181 in comparison. It is not quite as clear a picture as crude figures sometimes suggest. As I say, I accept the fact that the number of people working in local authorities has reduced, which is a proper cause for concern for me and others in central Government. What I do not accept is that it is on the scale suggested by some commentators, who are perhaps taking crude figures and interpreting them in an inappropriate way.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister has rightly drawn attention to the success of testing in the meat processing and abattoir sectors, but what is his view on the situation we have just come across involving five horses that were tested and identified as having bute in them, and although they did not enter directly into the UK chain, it was too late to stop them potentially entering the food chain elsewhere in the EU? Is that acceptable? What has gone wrong? They should not be entering the human food chain at all.

[Mr Heath]

I was going to move on to the issues about phenylbutazone and horse passports, as that was the other factor that has been referred to several times in the debate.

Let us be clear about phenylbutazone: it is a potentially harmful substance—in fact, there is little evidence one way or another, but we cannot say it is safe. That is why it is excluded from the food chain and it is quite right that it should be. It is principally excluded via the horse passport system. If the horse passport system is being properly applied, it will be excluded at the point of the abattoir. It should not enter the food chain and it should be simply disposed of in other ways. It is not the only drug residue that is occasionally tested for and that we need to be aware of. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate checks for a string of residues that we would also wish to exclude from the human food chain. The evidence from sampling suggests that a small quantity of phenylbutazone is making its way through, in some samples. That is concerning and it has to be investigated, which is exactly what we are doing. The Food Standards Agency is now looking at that in detail to see whether it can get a clearer picture.

There is a problem with the fact that it takes a long time for the test results to come through. I am afraid that I cannot explain why that is, but I am advised that it takes about three weeks to get the results back. During that time, it is entirely possible for food to be passed across the English channel to French markets, where it could enter the food chain. As soon as we have a positive confirmation, we advise the French—or whoever it is—authorities in the same way that they advise us. We have a wonderful network of agencies around Europe. They are constantly in communication and advise one another, which is why we knew about the Irish issue and why we would always notify the French—to ensure that that is the case. However, there is a delay, and the hon. Gentleman raises a point that I accept I need to look at further, to see if there is more that we can do.

[Mr Heath]

That would require all 9,000 horses that are killed for human consumption—the vast majority of which go abroad, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, because there is no appetite for horsemeat in this country, generally—to be kept in cold storage over a period of time while tests are being conducted. That is an option. What we have to do is be proportionate—we are required by law to be proportionate about what we do, because there are costs involved for exporters—and we can only do that if the evidence shows that it is a proportionate action to take. We are collecting that evidence at the moment and I will then take advice. If at any stage, the chief medical officer or the Food Standards Agency advises me that taking any action of that kind is necessary for the protection of human health, I will take it. I have not received that advice at the moment.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I welcome the Minister’s candour. In the couple of minutes that are remaining, will he deal with the other issue about horses and the food chain? In July 2012, the Veterinary Residues Committee, which reports to him, said:

“Defra’s follow-up investigations in recent years have found that some vets are still prescribing phenylbutazone without checking the passport or ensuring that the horse is subsequently signed out of the food-chain. Phenylbutazone residues have also been found in horses that have changed owners prior to going to slaughter, and whose passports do not indicate that they have been signed out of the food-chain.”

Does he have a view on that, and will he take action?

[Mr Heath]

I am very happy to look at the operation of the horse passport. However, the national equine database is a red herring. It never provided any information on the food-chain status of individual horses, and therefore, it really is not relevant. What is relevant is that passports need to be robust. They need to have the information, and people need to respect the fact that if they do not put that information in, the passports cannot serve as the sort of check and balance that we need. It is wrong to falsify a document such as a passport. Its purpose is to protect the public, but there is evidence of occasions on which people have falsified them.

We have a very complicated system of issuing horse passports. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) discussed it, and the hon. Member for Ogmore did not seem to recognise that his Government set it up. I understand why they set it up, because there are EU rules on the matter. Each breed society can issue a passport, because they keep the stud book and therefore, there is a proliferation. If we can take action to ensure that there is no duplication, it would be a good thing. Let us look at that, but again, I emphasise the point that if people want to defraud the system, they might do so. Our job is to try and pick that up, but let us not pretend that we can stop anyone from trying to defraud the system—sometimes they will.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North on securing the debate. I hope that it has been helpful in outlining some of the actions that we are taking. We will take more, because we need to make sure that the consumer is best served by labelling, and that what it says on the packet is what they get on their plate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As a previous secretary of the all-party group on sub-post offices, I wholeheartedly concur with and support what he says. Unlike the last Government, we have supported sub-post offices. There has just been an agreement on the subject with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Transport, and I talk regularly to my Cabinet counterparts about the benefits that rural post offices bring to the rural economy.

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

If the Agricultural Wages Board is abolished, about £250 million will be removed from the rural economy according to the Government’s own figures. Prime Minister Thatcher never did it; neither did John Major, and the Minister of State signed parliamentary motions against the abolition—that was before the ministerial trappings trapped him. What does the Secretary of State say to the tens of thousands of lowest-paid farm workers who may face a race to the bottom in pay and conditions because, after a four-week consultation, he knows better than them?

[Mr Paterson]

I am just sorry that the Labour party wants to head back to the 1940s. I see a dynamic, growing structure in our rural economy. In contrast, will the hon. Gentleman join me in celebrating the £19 million investment by Müller Dairy in a butter plant that will turn 100 million litres of milk into 45 million tonnes of butter? That will stop import substitution and bring jobs to rural areas. [Interruption.]

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of live animal exports and animal welfare.

It is a great pleasure to open this debate, which was requested by a cross-party group of Members. I want first to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us a debate on this extremely important issue. It is an extraordinary thing: Britain can have extreme pride when it comes to animal welfare—we have a strong sense of tradition. This is the country that passed the first piece of legislation on animal welfare—I believe it was in 1635—when we prohibited the pulling of wool off sheep and forbade the attaching of ploughs to horses’ tails.

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

Can the hon. Lady advise us whether that was in any way gold-plating of EU regulations?

[Laura Sandys]

I am sure the horses and sheep would have had something to say if it had been. That legislation was not only about animal welfare, but about more effective agriculture—I am concerned about how effective a plough drawn from the end of a horse’s tail would be. Even Cromwell decreed through parish rights that

“No Man shall exercise any Tyranny or Cruelty towards any brute Creature which are usually kept for man’s use.”

We should therefore be proud of our traditions and standards.

It was for that reason that when I became a Member of Parliament, I did not feel that this issue would concern me particularly. I felt we were leading the way—setting the standard. That was most certainly the case until live animal exports started from my local port in Ramsgate. As I started to see the trade first hand, I was extremely surprised that we in this country had so little power or control over the well-being of the animals bred here by UK farmers and exported to the continent. The trade out of Ramsgate shows, for example, how many licensing regimes regulate the industry. The ship that takes the animals across from Ramsgate to France is licensed in Latvia, but was designed as a roll-on, roll-off vessel for river crossings in Russia, not for crossing the channel. The transport licence holder has a licence in Holland. The drivers of the lorries do not need licences at all, but they do need to hold certificates of competence, which can be granted in any country, including those with different animal welfare priorities. They do not have the same tradition as us or the same high standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I think that the word the hon. Lady wants is “patronising” rather than “patronage”, but I accept that she was grasping for it and missed. Obviously, the RSPCA is entitled to its view, but it has not—dare I say it?—looked at the bigger picture. It is surely the job of parliamentarians to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have to follow the evidence, and the reality is that there is no evidence to say that an eight-hour rule would lead to a rise in animal welfare standards. In fact, it would only damage the farming industries in Scotland, parts of Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Let me move on to what more we could do. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has written to the Select Committee about this. One issue that we have not talked about is what more supermarkets can do. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether we could encourage them to introduce labelling that says that they have introduced their own voluntary codes about humane standards and clearly states what they are. We all know of the great success that the British egg industry has had with the introduction of the red lion symbol on packets of eggs. There are also fair trade labels for overseas goods. In the debate on the dairy industry a few weeks ago, an eloquent point was made by an hon. Member who said that we rightly talk about fair trade for overseas farmers but do not talk enough about fair trade for British farmers. I want to extend that principle. We should have clearer labelling from the supermarkets and the food producers that says that all their products have been produced in a humane way that complies with the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

On the request for a Select Committee inquiry, I am not in a position to divulge the thinking of colleagues, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have listened sympathetically to the arguments made today. We have been talking about the need for an inquiry into how EU regulations as a whole are implemented. I hope that we will have an opportunity in the near future to carry out such an inquiry, which might be a useful tool. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore responds to the debate he could set out in a little more detail what he thinks the terms of reference might be.

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

I will indeed do that. One of my reasons for calling for a wide-ranging review is not only to focus on the animal welfare considerations but to give the industry, which is a good industry, an opportunity to show where it is implementing good practice and to highlight the areas that might need improvement and amendment. It is very much an opportunity to salvage the reputation of the industry and to put things right where that is needed.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a good point. I would like three major players in the industry to give evidence—the farmers themselves, those involved in transportation, and the supermarkets. Perhaps my hon. Friend can expand on that. I hope that the animal welfare charities will also come to the table and add their voice, because that is important. That will enable us to take counsel from all interested parties.

This has been an excellent debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for South Thanet on securing it. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a privilege to follow such a commendable contribution. I understand that a few weeks ago one of my Labour colleagues made a contribution of one word, before time ran out, so the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) does not get the record, but it was quite a contribution none the less.

People watching will have seen a well balanced, diverse range of well considered contributions and interventions putting forward a variety of views on animal welfare and the live transportation of animals. It has been a good day for the House, and I hope that I and the Minister will continue in that frame of mind. I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and other Members, not only for calling the debate and enabling us to air our concerns, but for maintaining and arguing in favour of their long-standing, if sometimes differing, views. I will deal with the contributions first, because some of them pre-empt my own comments.

The hon. Lady spoke eloquently on behalf of herself, her constituents and—I suspect—her local authority, given that its views are very much aligned with hers, and said that DEFRA had been a bit too “meek and mild” and might need to go further. I will try to draw that out in my comments too. She said that DEFRA might need to focus more on this intriguing idea of fit and proper operators—a leitmotif in several contributions. We are talking not always about individual instances, but about operators that have had constant warnings—mention was made of six warnings in a short period in Ramsgate—and those patterns of behaviour draw out an interesting theme for the Minister. What does zero tolerance actually mean? When should we intervene to stop something that is a genuine animal welfare concern?

On another interesting theme, the hon. Lady talked about cost-sharing. Like other Members, including those who have farmed for many years, I sometimes wonder how the economics of this trade stack up. But they do stack up. The live export of lamb from south Wales, the moors of Ramsgate or Scotland maintains not just a premium price but a remarkably high premium price—there is huge demand for it. It would be interesting to know what would happen to the economics of the model if the additional costs of inspection, licensing and the adequate enforcement of animal welfare considerations—so that we can have real confidence in the integrity of the process, particularly of the long-distance travel—were loaded on to the transporters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who has been a consistent campaigner on animal welfare issues, rightly recognised the differing standards of animal welfare applied in many parts of the continent—another issue that I will return to—and its impact on the UK export trade. Even if all our domestic arrangements for animal exports are of the highest standards—what the hon. Member for South Thanet called the “gold standard” that we should be proud of aspiring to—what happens if the animals pass through or reach a part of the continent where the standards fall well below what we would expect? I ask the Minister to focus on that.

This has to be about the end-to-end journey, not simply about what we are doing. The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) would be appalled if any animals they were trading in—having done all the right things, such as loading the animals in good condition and ready for market, in the belief that they would be transported in good condition and get rested, fed, watered and given emergency treatment when needed—were ending up somewhere on the continent, such as Spain or even Brussels, where the same rigorous standards of animal welfare were not being applied. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East put to the Minister the valid question of what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on this issue, particularly on the topical issue in Europe at the moment—it is being debated as we speak and has been debated all week—which is the consistency of those standards across the EU. I am sure that the Minister will address those concerns.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke with great personal insight and expertise—given his farming background—and spoke proudly in favour of the gold-plating of animal welfare. He said we should be doing that and that he would want to be doing that as a farmer. He took pride in driving towards those standards. We are talking, of course, in part about a sector—sheep exporting—that is for farmers who are not prosperous or massive landowners. These people are often farming on less favoured agricultural land where the only option is sheep farming. Only a few years back, the price of those carcasses was half or a third of what they are now. They have always struggled, but they have always focused on the highest standards, and the Government need to help them to do that.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. He just mentioned personal experience. Will he say a bit more about his own personal experiences in this industry, and will he set out what terms of reference he thinks the Select Committee should consider, if we do indeed do a report?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I shall return later to the specific things that the inquiry should consider—it will not be an exhaustive list, but I will give some good pointers. On my own personal experience, I have not been a sheep farmer, but my friendly and well loved father-in-law was a sheep farmer for many years on the uplands of the Brecon Beacons.

[Mr MacNeil]

Crawler!

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. I am just worried about any inheritance potential, so I had better continue.

For many years my father-in-law was a sheep farmer, and I would go out and help him. I was born on the Gower and, curiously, my first ever job as a young lad of 10 or 11—I know not everybody will like this, including on my Benches—was to go to Gowerton market. At that time, we had a live market right in the centre of the village—it is long gone; now it is housing. We had just turned metric, and my job in the market, for 50p a day, was to go with the farmers on the back of their wagons, load what seemed to me to be these massive beasts—they were massive, because even a sheep to me at that age appeared to be very big—and take them off to what were then local slaughterhouses and abattoirs. One of the problems with those abattoirs is that not all of them had the high standards that we now expect. We have seen a diminution in the number of abattoirs across the country, which brings us back to the points that many Members have made. We would love to see more local abattoirs—I will raise this again with the Minister in a moment—but we also need to have high quality abattoirs, with the very highest standards for both consumers and farmers.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the reduction in the number of abattoirs. In this important book—“Little Book of Meat Facts”, published by Hybu Cig Cymru—it says that in 1990 there were more than 60 slaughterhouses in Wales and that in 2011 there were just over 20. That gives an indication of the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention, which points to a long-term trend. Some of the reasons behind it were negative, in that the drive to improve standards in slaughterhouses and abattoirs meant that some of the smaller and—let us be honest—lower-standard ones were forced to close. We are fortunate, because the town I live in—Maesteg, which has a population of 17,000—still has a working, prosperous, thriving abattoir right in the centre, which is unusual nowadays. The abattoir services not only the local farmers, but the butchers in town, which are also thriving. However, that is unusual. The abattoir has had to increase its standards massively and absorb those costs or pass them on. Perhaps the Minister will return in his closing comments—I think we will have time—to what more can be done not only to protect the remaining network of abattoirs at the very highest standards, but to encourage, where possible, the resurrection of others. There are some worries—the pig sector has been mentioned, with the retreat of Vion from the market, but there are others as well. We want the resilience of the slaughtering sector to be maintained.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Miss McIntosh]

As the Minister probably knows, an announcement on Vion is imminent, but does the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) agree that the reduction in the number of small abattoirs probably contributed to foot and mouth disease spreading in the way it did? Small abattoirs are also hugely popular with farm shops and help the local farming community enormously.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the popularity of small abattoirs increasing as people become much more aware of the provenance and source of their food. Her first point is also valid, because of the biosecurity risks that result from increased animal movements generally. In my constituency, farmers would summer-pasture their sheep down in the lowlands and in the winter literally drive them on to the top. Come time for market, they would drive the sheep down the old drovers’ route into Blackmill for the market—a grass-based market, not a concrete market—from where they would go straight to the local shops and so on. Those days are gone. We now routinely—because of biosecurity, as well as for other reasons—shift animals in trucks. That brings with it the massive obligation of looking after their welfare.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it not also true that a local abattoir gets better meat because there is less stress on the animals, which directly affects the quality of meat?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am not in a position to make a completely evidence-based judgment on that. I can only say that we buy directly from our local abattoir in Maesteg, and the produce is absolutely fantastic.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend out. The answer is that it depends on the stress that the animal goes through in the build-up. The point is—it is a point he has made before—that although at first glance a local abattoir might be preferable, if standards of hygiene and humane treatment are not met, that leads to a poorer outcome. I suspect that the key thing in this debate is the standards of humane treatment that we all want to see.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly formed point.

I shall proceed at a rate of knots now, because I want to touch on the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about the Spanish diet given to exported sheep. I am intrigued to know what it consists of; I suspect that it is not tapas. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke with the benefit of his experience as a well loved and well respected food and farming Minister, although he was not quite so well respected by publications such as Horse & Hound. He made a considered and well balanced contribution, in which he rightly praised the higher standards generally to be found in the UK. He also echoed other Members’ call for a wider review, in the interests of animal welfare and of the industry. He made detailed points about the Ramsgate incident, as did others, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire also has huge experience in this area. I do not think that my father-in-law’s sheep ever mingled with his; there was a little obstacle in the way, known as the Brecon Beacons. He focused on animal welfare considerations and raised the issue of zero tolerance. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister define that concept. What does it mean, particularly in the context of repeat offending by individuals, companies or organisations? Are we going to step in and take action much more rapidly in those circumstances? I hope that the answer will be yes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

indicated assent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am glad the Minister confirms that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, made a very good contribution. He talked about getting a fair price for meat exports, which could help to continue the downward trend in live exports. If farmers are able to get a good price for meat on the hook, rather than on the hoof, they will certainly go for that market. I am glad that he also mentioned the importance of listening to the views of the devolved nations and Administrations.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) rightly spoke about end-to-end protection for animals throughout their whole journey. He also mentioned the importance of the right provision of animal welfare being in the right place at the right time. The Ramsgate incident illustrates that need. Having lairage facilities in the right places along the route, for example, is critical. I hope that the Minister’s internal review of the Ramsgate incident will throw up some of those issues for wider discussion. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also said that live animal exports represent only a tiny proportion of the export market. He is right to say that live exports are declining as a part of the overall meat sector, but they are nevertheless vital for certain farmers, especially those who are not big, wealthy barley barons.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a good contribution. We have to respect those whose ethical reasoning leads them to form different conclusions from those of other Members who are also exercising their own ethical reasoning. She went into quite some detail about the importance of maintaining animal welfare standards from end to end. She also referred to the very good initiative between Compassion in World Farming and the NFU on the treatment of young calves in the pink veal trade. That initiative has enormous potential, but we need to take consumers with us as well and to brand that. We have done that successfully in other meat areas over the years, but it has usually taken a few years to get there. It is great to see animal welfare organisations working hand in hand with farming organisations to try to create that market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about patterns of behaviour leading to regular problems. That links back to the question of zero tolerance. I welcome his support for an inquiry, whoever might carry it out. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and express an interest in such an inquiry, but if not, I look forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), to whom I have recently written on this issue. My hon. Friend also raised the vital issue of the capacity of the animal inspectors at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency to carry out inspections in the light of the cutbacks and of the rise in concern about confidence in the trade. How will such inspections be sourced, given that DEFRA has already had cutbacks, along with every Department, and is now facing more?

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke eloquently about the RSPCA campaign, and I thank the RSPCA, the NFU and many other organisations for contributing to the debate and providing briefings for it. Interestingly, he raised the issue—nobody else did—of the labelling and provenance of meat that is transported to various destinations and rebranded as indigenous to an area different from where it was raised and produced.

I think we all agree that animal welfare considerations in the movement of live animals for trade, for slaughter, for breeding or for other reasons should be absolutely paramount. Logically, the volume and duration of the movements of live animals should therefore be kept to a minimum. That is why in opposition now, as when in government, we want a growth in the trade and export of meat or germ plasm rather than of live animals. That is why in opposition, as when in government, we believe it best that animals are slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible so that the transportation of live animals is minimised and the welfare considerations are lessened. In short, more exports on the hook, not on the hoof, is the right aim.

The trade is legal, and any attempt to ban it, which has wider European and UK-Ireland implications than the focus on any one transit route such as the one through Ramsgate might suggest, would break on the rocks of article 34 of the treaty of Rome. That was the consistent legal advice we received in government—my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse would have received it—so I invite the Minister to intervene to say whether that advice has changed in any way.

[Mr Heath]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister shakes his head, so the advice is still the same. In that case, our focus must be on the paramount issue of animal welfare considerations for a trade that will continue, to and from the UK and across other parts of the Europe, for the foreseeable future.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not the key point the fact that when it comes to the crossing of borders, animal welfare is the bottom line?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that is absolutely valid. We strongly believe in that focus, the Minister strongly believes in it and many contributors to the debate believe that the focus must be animal welfare. I did not touch on an issue that was raised consistently in this debate: that even if we take away the crossing of seas to Ireland, Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands and mainland Europe, we still have a massive internal trade of live animal shipments, and it is part of the integrity of our current livestock business. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that we should focus on animal welfare.

I say that in the knowledge that, only yesterday or the day before, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted strongly in plenary session to support a report on the protection of animals during transport, which had many recommendations. As I know from my meetings with European parliamentarians and Commission officials in Brussels over the last few weeks, this issue is of topical concern right across Europe, not just in the UK. It is a good and comprehensive report that makes some sensible recommendations on the effective and improved implementation of existing measures to safeguard animal welfare.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the one part of the report that is causing great debate at the moment and that has been referred to in today’s debate—the growing momentum behind support for an eight-hour maximum for animals travelling for slaughter or for fattening across the EU? As has been mentioned, over 1 million EU citizens have now signed a petition that was organised by Compassion in World Farming and others.

[Miss McIntosh]

A local farmer recently approached me to say that for the first time he has won an order to transport a small number of cattle from Thirsk to Italy in excellent conditions. This would probably breach that petition, but would not breach animal welfare provisions. He would risk losing that trade, as would many others from Scotland and other parts of the north of England, if we strictly implemented what the shadow Minister proposes.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

That is not what I am proposing. What I am proposing is a live debate. Given the existence of a petition bearing more than 1 million signatures, I think that we need to consider the issue in considerable detail. That would include consideration of impacts such as the one cited by the hon. Lady, about which I shall say more in a moment. She has made a very valid point.

[Roger Williams]

I think that the public often assume that all animal transport takes place in the worst conditions. A good debate on the issue, and an understanding that some transport conditions are a great deal better than others, would help us to reach a conclusion.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

As we know, the big issues that hit the headlines in the press involve the worst possible examples. What they do not tell us is that, as has rightly been pointed out a number of times today, the standards that we apply in the UK—at least within UK borders, because beyond those borders a difficulty arises—are generally much higher. We have not been singled out by the European Commission for having poor standards of animal welfare. It would be churlish of me, at Christmas, to name the areas in Europe—whole areas, as well as individual nations—where there are such problems.

Although today’s debate has been very useful, I would go further if I were in the Minister’s shoes. I would be seriously thinking of commissioning a piece of work—let us call it an impact assessment, for want of a better phrase—dealing with the likely effects of an eight-hour journey limit on the transport of live animals both inside and outside the UK. Let us see, in black and white, the probable impacts on exports of live animals to the continent, on trade between Great Britain and Ireland—including Northern Ireland—and on internal movements on the UK mainland and between the highlands and islands. Let us not leap to conclusions. Let us make our policy on the basis of the evidence: the evidence on animal welfare, and the socio-economic evidence.

In making that policy, we must acknowledge that, although the focus in the United Kingdom has recently been on exports via Ramsgate involving the hugely regrettable slaughter of more than two score animals, there is a far wider trade—most of it involving short journeys, but some, by necessity, involving longer ones—within the UK, among our islands, and with our neighbours in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Although the Minister’s focused investigation of the lessons to be learned from Ramsgate is welcome—I should like to know when we are likely to see its outcome, by the way—it is essential for a wider review to be conducted so that we do not end up making policy on the basis of individual incidents, no matter how harrowing they may be. That piece of work should also pull together the best available evidence from all sources on the animal welfare considerations that would support, or otherwise, the case for any limit on the duration of a journey.

The time is right for a more wide-ranging review of the live animal trade to and from the UK. It should be independent of the trade in order to be seen to be fair and impartial. It could focus on animal welfare considerations, but also on the economic importance or otherwise of the trade. It might give the existing trade a clean bill of health, or highlight areas of concern where improvement is needed. In either event, it would benefit the trade to have, as it were, an MOT, in the light of well-publicised recent concerns that risk damaging not just the trade in live exports, but the wider reputation of the food and farming sector.

I have discussed this matter with representatives of farming unions. I have told them that I believe it would be in their interests to support the call for a review of the trade, and I hope that any of them who hear or read my words will support that reasonable call. Resisting it would suggest there was something to hide. As the Minister knows, I have already asked, in a written parliamentary question, whether he is minded to carry out a review, and he replied that he had no plans to do so. That is a pity, because I think that he could do a service to the industry and to animal welfare by changing his mind. He recently changed his mind about including the power to use financial penalties in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which was a welcome precedent. He is a listening Minister.

In the absence of the Minister’s willingness to carry out a review, I wrote to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the knowledge that, given her expertise and that of the other Committee Members, a forensic and helpful eye could be cast on these matters. I know that the Committee’s programme of activities is chock-a-block, but if it is unable to pursue a separate review of the trade, perhaps that could be incorporated in the wider animal welfare review which I understand that it may be undertaking in the new year.

Such a wider review could address the following questions. Is the level of veterinary inspection sufficient at all stages of the journey, from the loading of animals through to ports or other stations and onward on the UK mainland, the European mainland and in Ireland and Northern Ireland? Such an investigation could also serve to provide us with an end-to-end assessment of the level of mortality and injury. What assessment has the Minister made of the levels of mortality within different sectors of the trade and on different durations of journey? Is the current level of inspection good enough for longer journeys?

We welcome the Minister’s temporary strengthening of procedures through Ramsgate, but it is only temporary. Should the current heightened level of inspection be maintained, and have any areas of concern been identified? Are animals that are unfit for travel ever loaded? I hope not, but it is one of the concerns people feel. Why is some unsuitable transport still being used? How often does that happen, and what sanctions are imposed? Should we take more robust action against the risk-takers and the rogues?

There are major issues to be addressed if Ramsgate or any other port is to be used as the long-term staging post for live exports, including the suitability of vessels and the availability of emergency facilities at or near the port for unloading, feeding and watering animals. Which exit points from the UK are most suitable in respect of minimising animals’ travel time? Is it desirable at all to offload animals at a port, except in the most exceptional circumstances, where they cannot be transported to a nearby facility? Do some transporters have a history of poor animal welfare behaviour?

On the wider issue of animal transportation across the UK, do any aspects need to be addressed to ensure we comply fully with our obligations under EU regulation 1/2005? If additional measures are identified in a wider review, the Government should take action under article 1.3 of the regulation.

What is the Minister doing to make good on his, and our, ambition to encourage the slaughter of animals close to their point of production, in order to minimise the transportation of live animals? Is the reduction in numbers, and geographical spread, of abattoirs a relevant factor? I think it is, so what more can we do to promote local slaughter?

This has been a very good debate with some expert and well-informed contributions. I hope the Minister will deal in detail with the concerns expressed, and finally may I reiterate a request I made in a letter to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and urge the Minister to consider whether, in addition to the Ramsgate-focused review, we should look more broadly at animal welfare issues and the socio-economic aspects of the wider trade in and out of the UK?

Food Poverty

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to respond to this debate from the Labour Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for what was, I agree, a real tour de force. Her speech set out in comprehensive detail and with passion what is happening not only nationally but in her own constituency. I commend her not only for opening this debate but for her work on the issue. I also commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all other colleagues who have spoken so passionately on so many interventions. That shows the strength of feeling about this debate and the reality of what is happening on the ground. I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) for his contribution, some aspects of which I will address. I note that he was equally shocked at the recent explosion in the number of food banks.

In previous debates on food poverty and food affordability, I have discussed in great detail strategic aspects of food policy, including global commodity speculation, domestic food security and resilience, so I do not intend to repeat those arguments. Instead, I will ask the Minister a very simple and direct question that has already been put by many others today: why, at Christmas 2012 in an advanced and developed nation, are we facing a rising tide of food poverty, with working families and individuals, as well as the unemployed, turning up in greater numbers every day at food banks and relying more and more on the immense and invaluable generosity of others?

The contribution of time and effort by volunteers at food banks, kitchens and food collection and distribution points throughout the country is quite simply incredible and inspiring. People—who are often themselves of limited means—have risen to the challenge of sharing food with those who, temporarily or otherwise, are unable to feed themselves and their families. We should be proud of that generosity of spirit, and proud of that statement of shared humanity. It is not pity; it is far more than simple charity. It is a recognition that—in a way that the Government have failed to understand—we actually are all in this together.

That is why Labour is supporting the work of groups such as FareShare, the Trussell Trust, FoodCycle and so many more that have been mentioned today that are responding to a real, immediate and growing crisis in the country. We should be proud of that endeavour and proud of the amazing collective response; yet we should also be ashamed as an advanced first-world nation that the state—the Government—is quietly walking away from its responsibilities to its citizens.

As we approach Christmas, I say to the Government—to good Ministers in this Government—that they are playing their part at the moment in the good Samaritan parable, but it is not the role that we want them to play. As others are stepping in to help the victims of food poverty and wider poverty who are in need, the Government are walking by on the other side of the road.

The Government have now presided over a decline into “Breadline Britain”, which is the title of one of the most comprehensive studies of the parlous finances of working households—not the unemployed, but the employed. The study estimated that nearly 7 million working-age adults are living in extreme financial stress, despite being in employment, and each of those households was just one step from penury—from extreme poverty. There are 2.2 million children in those households, although Save the Children estimates that as many as 3.5 million children may now be experiencing food poverty.

That is why increasingly the human face of food banks is not only the person relying on welfare support, although they are there: the pensioner who is otherwise faced with a choice between heating and eating and who can postpone making that choice at a food bank and the recently jobless mother finding that she cannot make the budget stretch for the whole week, sometimes choosing between feeding herself and her child. They—and many more—are there and are receiving support. But so are the working poor—people who find that the rising costs of living and declining real incomes mean that the ends no longer meet. As economic indicators go, the rise in payday lenders on otherwise struggling high streets is a sad indictment of socio-economic failure.

I make a “Christmas future” prediction for the Minister. More people will rely on the support of food banks this Christmas than last Christmas, and next Christmas more people will be in that situation than this Christmas, when the changes to welfare—including those announced in the autumn statement—fully kick in, affecting not only those reliant on benefits, who we have heard about, but the majority who are actually in work.

If the Minister does not want to listen to me, I ask him to listen instead to the Government’s one-time poverty tsar and a former welfare Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who said:

“Recent welfare cuts and policy changes make it difficult to advise these people where they should turn to get out of it: it really is genuinely shocking.”

As the Member of Parliament for Ogmore, I personally endorse his concerns. The days of an MP signposting constituents to sources of support in troubled times are diminishing, as those social security and local emergency support structures weaken and crumble under this Government.

I do not believe that any Minister or coalition Member of Parliament came into the House to do the wrong thing by the people they represent, but they cannot continue to argue that they are helpless against global economic storms. The decline into “Breadline Britain” is happening on their watch, day by day, month by month, and now year after year. They can choose to do better, and that is why this debate cannot be, and has not been, simply about the amazing work carried out by those groups and organisations that have chosen not to walk by but to help their neighbours, in the best traditions of Christians, Muslims, all faith groups and no-faith groups—in the best traditions of humanity.

We applaud and continue to support the work of those groups and organisations—we could not do without them—but we ask the Government also to recognise that their own actions on benefits and tax reforms and their social and economic policies are not only failing to alleviate the problems but are worsening the situation. Think again, before it is too late.