Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

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

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

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

[Roger Williams]

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

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

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

Food Fraud

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend is completely right that food fraud is price-driven—there is no doubt about that. Food adulteration and fraud are as old as history, as we know from many centuries of experience. The watering down of milk was one such example, but an even more heinous crime is the watering down of beer, which should carry an especially heavy penalty!

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

Is there watered-down beer in Brecon?

[Roger Williams]

We do not have any examples in Brecon; it is mostly down in south Wales! But the history books are full of examples of this sort of thing.

As I was saying, it essential to safeguard this industry. Food and farming is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, contributing £96 billion to the economy and employing almost 4 million people. It is essential to keep up confidence in the UK, while also protecting the reputation of our food abroad.

Another point inn Elliott’s proposals is the setting up of a cross-Cabinet Committee on food safety and food crime. I fully agree with that recommendation and I am glad that the Government have accepted it.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for giving way. Particularly in the light of the splitting of the roles and responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency in 2010, was he surprised that some sort of cross-Government or cross-Cabinet regular systematic group was not established to take account of that fact?

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—one that is addressed in the Elliott report and one that the Government have accepted, as I said. I am very pleased that the Government have accepted all the report’s recommendations, so we should pay tribute both to the report and to the Government’s response to it.

Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s point, there was such a cross-Government forum for co-ordination on food at Cabinet level until May 2010. Up to that point, there was also more clarity on the responsibilities for food, as the FSA then had the responsibility for authenticity, testing and policy on compositional labelling of food, as well as on nutrition policy, which subsequently went to the Department of Health.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way again. In his interim report, Professor Chris Elliott made it clear that he wanted to see both responsibilities returned directly to the FSA. In his subsequent final report—he has made it clear that it is because of the political difficulty—he has stepped back a little from that, but the suggestion is that he would still like to see this done. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that? Should these responsibilities be returned to the FSA?

[Roger Williams]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the full report by Professor Elliott, he will find that he responds to the concern that the final report took quite a long time to come out. He makes it very clear that none of the recommendations in the final report is the result of any political pressure, but are the result of his committee looking at the issue and coming up with what he believes are the best proposals for protecting food and consumers.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

No doubt the Minister will correct me later if I am wrong, but I believe that Professor Chris Elliott said he was loth to include the full recommendation in the interim report—that is, the recommendation that all the responsibility should be returned to the FSA—and made it clear that that was because of the political difficulty of doing so. I make that point purely for the sake of accuracy.

[Roger Williams]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will develop his point further when he makes his own speech, and that the Minister will do so as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. As has already been pointed out, price is the driver of food crime, and as Professor Elliott said in his report, if major retailers or processors have a deal that is too good to be true, they should trace it to its source. Both processors and retailers have a real responsibility in that regard. It is no good saying that they have not the facilities or the wherewithal; they have the ultimate responsibility.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good and wide-ranging speech on the basis of his experience. He mentioned European and international co-operation, whose importance Professor Elliott has stressed strongly and repeatedly. Did he share my concern when, only a few months after the height of the horsemeat scandal, the European Commissioner for crime and justice—who deals with such collaborative approaches—remarked how preposterous it was that, at a time when we were seeking international collaboration, the coalition Government were seeking opt-outs on 130 areas of European co-operation on that very issue?

[Roger Williams]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce a political point which is far outside the scope of the debate.

Water Bill

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans). In a different incarnation, he was my Member of Parliament, and indeed my tenant, so our relationship goes back a long way. His expertise in insurance, which he brings to this debate, is well known. We have heard many other contributions tonight, including from the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has great experience and knowledge of these matters. Had he been introducing the Bill, he would have had three years to prepare, whereas my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am pleased to see here, has had about three weeks. Nevertheless, he was a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill and will be aware of the detail and some of our concerns about things that are not in the Bill.

I broadly welcome the Bill. One of the vital challenges facing the UK is the need to protect the health of our rivers and lakes, while keeping water available and affordable. Water resources are currently under considerable pressure, and it is predicted that water constraints will become more severe in the future. There is limited competition in the current system, so I welcome the competition clauses, which will open the sector up to more competition and encourage the construction of more connections between water company areas. The introduction of retail competition among water companies could support greater water efficiency in the non-domestic sector.

Although I welcome the idea that businesses and local authorities can switch water suppliers, I recognise that individual consumers will not have that opportunity. The regulator must ensure that bills remain affordable, while expecting water companies to have the ability to invest in the infrastructure. We need consumer bills to be affordable now, but we must also recognise that water supplies are needed for the future, so I hope that we can amend the Bill in Committee to make it better for consumers and for the environment. There has been concern that, as companies compete for customers in the commercial sector, domestic customers may carry more of the costs of supply. We will need to hear from the Minister in Committee how that will be prevented.

The system for abstraction licences is not fit for purpose and is long overdue for reform. The Government have said that the work will have to wait until the mid-2020s, but it is important to address it much earlier than that. We need a system of licensing abstraction that balances resilience with the state of the environment.

One of Ofwat’s secondary duties is to promote sustainable development. Liberal Democrats would like to see that duty elevated to a primary level. For that reason, I intend to table an amendment in Committee to give Ofwat a primary duty to promote sustainability. I agreed with the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, in a debate on the Gracious Address in the other place, that a thorough examination is needed of the effect of the water industry on the environment now and in the longer term.

Ofwat seems to have a rather confused approach to sustainability. Let me quote from the supplementary written evidence submitted by Ofwat to the EFRA Committee in respect of the draft Water Bill:

“I provide further written evidence on specifically why we consider that our duty to contribute to sustainable development should not be elevated to a primary duty”,

yet it also said:

“Indeed, the core vision of our strategy is: ‘A sustainable water cycle in which we are able to meet the needs of water and sewerage services while enabling future generations to meet their own needs”,

It calls this “sustainable water”—it seems to me that its thinking is rather confused. My understanding of sustainability is that it is about balance, not conflict, and Ofwat should be well aware that its decision making can affect the environment as well as economic and social matters. I believe that Ofwat has accepted the need for sustainability as a primary duty and that the Government should legislate to establish it.

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

The hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency not far away from mine, makes some very good points. Does he agree that in his opening remarks the Secretary of State seemed to be arguing for that duty of sustainability and, indeed, that his rhetoric fitted exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests should be on the face of the Bill?

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. There is widespread acceptance that sustainability should be a core feature of Ofwat’s work, yet it seems that some people are setting their face against having that on the face of the Bill.

The UK has been faced with an increase in the number and severity of flood events, and it is vital for the Government to provide widespread and affordable household insurance in at-risk areas. I thus welcome the proposed new legal framework that seeks to establish Flood Re—a levy-funded reinsurance pool for high-risk individuals. If that is introduced, insurance companies must make their customers aware of the scheme and the opportunities it provides. A number of my constituents in Llangammarch Wells were really frightened by some press releases put out by the Environment Agency in Wales—now called Natural Resources Wales—about restricted insurance. After further consultation with Natural Resources Wales, we have been able to sort that matter out.

Water bills set a particular challenge for low-income families. There are no specific benefits such as housing benefit or council tax benefit to help with these costs, but the Government have stated that they will continue to support the WaterSure initiative, even though take-up has been rather poor. Other water companies can bring forward their own schemes, and Welsh Water provides a good example of how that can be done in practice.

The water industry is responsible for the most essential public services. Few things are more important for public health—or indeed for normal day-to-day living—than a safe and reliable supply of drinking water, and the efficient collection and treatment of waste water. More than 90% of health improvements over the last two centuries have resulted from the provision of safe-to-drink tap water and proper sanitation.

The water industry everywhere is very capital-intensive. Many of its assets—reservoirs, treatment works, water pipes and sewers—have very long lives, but, even when we allow for that and for the fact that investment doubled after privatisation in 1989, the average age of water company networks is increasing every day. The rate of renewal of sewers, for example, gives an average assumed age of more than 600 years. Investment levels are agreed with regulators every five years, and investment decisions are based on the priorities for the years ahead.

The water industry invests and spends more than it receives from its customers through bills. It finances its expenditure by raising money from investors in the capital markets, and so far that money has come almost entirely from bonds and other borrowing. In other words, the industry is cash-flow negative, and that will persist, partly because of the backlog of asset renewal but mainly because of the new standards that must be met. As a result of that cash-flow negativity and continuing high and necessary levels of investment, the cost of capital and funds raised from the capital markets is key, and will become more and more important. The cost of capital on money raised since privatisation already absorbs a third of the bill, and relatively small changes in the allowed or achieved cost of funding. Every 1% saving on the cost of financing the industry’s “regulated capital value” reduces customer bills by 5%.

Given that so much of the value chain is represented by the network of assets, both the raw material and the retail element represent a very small part of the overall bill. The Water Bill proposes that business customers in England should be allowed to choose their water retailers, but the Welsh Government have decided not to go down that route. As Professor Dieter Helm has said, large business customers will argue that they should pay only marginal costs, and if water companies succumb to the pressure, it will mean higher bills for household customers.

The true cost per customer varies enormously, and the rural customer costs many times more than the urban customer. Averaging the cost in that way is good public policy. “De-averaging” poses a real risk by giving business customers choice, thus causing water companies to reduce their tariffs locally to satisfy demands from big customers and to recover the lost income from household customers who cannot exert the same pressure.

The water industry should be owned, managed and operated in the interests of customers. I do not believe that it should be re-nationalised, but this long-term industry provides us all with the most essential of public services. Few things are more important to public health, and indeed to modern life, than a safe and reliable supply of tap water.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

At the risk of being slightly parochial, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman finds it odd, given the rush to privatisation all those aeons ago, that we have only one mutual water company? In a week in which we have heard bad news about co-operative movements and so on, we should bear it in mind that that one mutual company has achieved very high levels of customer satisfaction, has invested massively over the last couple of decades, and manages to keep its bills pretty low despite having no profits, no shareholders and no dividends.

[Roger Williams]

I think that it will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I am not only a customer of Welsh Water, but a great fan of the model. Welsh Water is just about the only public utility company which receives letters of support that outnumber its letters of complaint, and its credit rating is higher than those of all the other water companies. It can borrow at almost the same rate as the Government.

The water company that serves Wales, and much of Herefordshire and Deeside, is owned, financed and managed on behalf of its customers. Glas Cymru has a strong board with a majority of non-executive directors, all of whom are individuals of high standing. It complies with corporate governance best practice, although it has no shares listed on the Stock Exchange. It accounts for its performance to its members and other stakeholders and measures its performance against things that really matter to customers: drinking water, reliability of service, protecting our rivers and coastal waters from pollution, and customer satisfaction. The pay of everybody who works for Glas Cymru is linked to performance against those measures, and because Glas Cymru is one of 10 large water and sewerage companies in England and Wales everyone can judge whether it has done a good, bad or middling job on the measures that matter to customers and the environment. Welsh Water is unique in the water industry. Its employees are rewarded on the basis of customer satisfaction rather than shareholder value. The Bill does not address the structure of the water industry—that may be for another day—but I welcome its broad thrust and look forward to working on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister.

Food Contamination

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, at this late hour on a Thursday afternoon. I should begin by declaring an interest. I am still involved in a farming business that produces red meat: beef and lamb. I commend the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and the members of the Committee for the work that they have done on this very important matter. I also commend the NAO report that has recently been published.

The sound and fury has gone out of this matter for now, but that does not mean that it is not extraordinarily important. It is extraordinarily important for our farming communities that their product should not be contaminated again in the future and extraordinarily important for consumers that they should have the ability to choose what they want to eat, knowing that it is as described on the label. Sadly, however, the history of food is full of examples of contamination and adulteration. The watering down of beer is a heinous crime, but it has been perpetrated everywhere. It is not the only one, unfortunately.

I would like to draw a distinction between contamination and adulteration. As far as I am concerned, contamination is when a small quantity of extraneous material finds its ways into foodstuffs. That usually occurs because of negligence or carelessness in the preparation or processing of food, in relation either to buildings or to equipment. Sometimes contamination may not be serious. It may involve inert material. But sometimes, of course, it can be very serious indeed. One example is the poisonous material ergot in rye bread; I can think of other examples. It is also very serious when infective material gets into foodstuffs. Sadly, there are outbreaks of E. coli from time to time in this country. Of course, the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned the presence of pork in food that is supposed to have been processed to an halal standard, which is grossly offensive to the Muslim community. That is particularly serious as well.

I define contamination as something that does not take place deliberately, but it quickly became apparent to me during the so-called horsemeat scandal that what was happening was not happening through carelessness. In the main, it was a deliberate attempt to make money out of fraud, and we should see it in that light. People from time to time do see the opportunity to do that. If they can introduce something into a foodstuff that does not necessarily alter its appearance, taste or consistency, they can get away with it for a short time before more sophisticated tests can be done on that foodstuff. The Chairman of the Committee mentioned the changes in the way in which certain foodstuffs, including meat, could be included in other foodstuffs.

Adulteration also occurs when we have high commodity prices for meat or for any foodstuff, and of course the price of meat has risen quite considerably. If it rises quickly, there are opportunities for the less scrupulous to introduce a cheaper product into what is a fairly expensive product. My criticism of the supermarket and meat processors still stands: rather than accepting that the price of the commodity had gone up, they were scouring the European markets and probably the world markets to find a cheaper product. That gave an opportunity for less scrupulous people to get involved and make money.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good contribution. He has a great background in this area. Does he agree that a signal change of the past few decades has made good governance necessary, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said? Whereas a previous outbreak to do with either food providence or safety may have been relatively isolated in a region—I have had them in my area—nowadays the potential danger and risk are much greater, because they are transnational and affect the plates of far more consumers, potentially in many different countries? That is why governance is important.

[Roger Williams]

I agree. My hon. Friend—he is a Welsh MP with me, so I will call him that—reiterates the words of the Chair of the Select Committee. That was a conclusion the Committee came to.

I was going to say that part of the complexity with the process was that the contamination was not happening in only Britain or one region of Britain. Very long and complex food chains were undoubtedly involved, and part of the problem is that we do not know where some of the products originated. For me, one of the key things to come out of the NAO report is on page 5:

“Six months on, inquiries are still ongoing and the original source of the adulteration has not been identified.”

It goes on to say that some people have been arrested. For all that our Government have done and for all that Governments on the continent have done, we still do not know where the horsemeat entered the food chain. Until we can establish that, we will not have done a good job and we will not have deterred other people from trying to make opportunistic profits.

If we do not know where the meat came into the food chain, we have no idea what its provenance was. We do not know whether the animal was slaughtered in a registered slaughterhouse or the back shed of a farm somewhere. We have no idea about the safety of the meat. It appears to many of us that the crisis did not involve any human illness, but if we do not know the provenance of the meat, we do not know if that was by luck alone. It is key that we continue our work and work with our European partners on a governmental as well as a police level to identify where the horsemeat entered the food chain.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

What are the hon. Gentleman’s views on the need for deep intelligence across Departments in analysing what is going on? There could have been a moment when the contamination could have been picked up. It is all very well saying that in hindsight, but it could have been detected. We had massive shipments of horses from Ireland and Northern Ireland into Britain for transport out of the UK, but they were not transported. They were disappearing. There were numbers in, but no numbers out. At some point, a good intelligence operation would have spotted that and flagged up the fact that those horses were going somewhere.

Horsemeat

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- 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.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Commission on Devolution in Wales

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Roger Williams

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to a point I had intended to make later. The present coalition agreement sets out the programme for the first half of this Parliament. Work now needs to be set in hand to take forward the coalition for the second half, which will obviously include proposals for Wales. When Wales said yes to having a Welsh Assembly in 1997, the devolution package was missing one critical element. The Welsh Government have the luxury of spending money handed out by others, but unlike those in Scotland and Northern Ireland they have no power to borrow or raise money; as has been suggested, they have fewer powers than local authorities. I believe that the lack of accountability has led to some irresponsibility in the Welsh Government’s spending of money. Indeed, when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury visited Wales in April he said that the commission

“will aim to develop the financial autonomy of the Welsh Government to give Wales more opportunity to create the right environment for encouraging growth”

and jobs. I thank him for his support. As a Scottish MP, he brought knowledge of the Calman commission to the proposals, whose usefulness should not be underestimated. Welsh Liberal Democrats will engage fully and constructively in this process. We will urge the commission to bring more accountability and responsibility to the Welsh Government and to give Wales further power to drive forward economic development, creating jobs and prosperity in Wales.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the midst already of several very good contributions, but will he clarify what he understands by “financial accountability”? We all understand it in broad terms, but will it be financial accountability with some additional tax-raising or tax-varying powers, or accountability from within a deficit that has been lopped off the block grant? Robbing Peter to pay Paul and then asking the Welsh Government to be accountable for money that the UK Government have taken away from them, and for which the Welsh Government are then able to raise taxes, does not seem like real accountability. I want to protect what is already in Wales, and if there is accountability let it be for additionality, not for something that has been taken away from Wales.

[Roger Williams]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s first point, but not his second. We would all like to see local authorities raising more of their spending power locally so that they become more accountable, and I believe that the situation would be the same for the Welsh Assembly Government, although I do not see any reduction in the spending proposed for them. I may come on to that later, however.

I thank also the Deputy Prime Minister for his work in broadening the commission’s terms of reference and composition. There were people who wanted a much smaller commission, of perhaps only three people and without political appointees, but I am glad that the consensus was for a much larger and broader one. The political appointees are a huge boost to the commission, and they bring vital political experience to its work.

I commend the choice of Paul Silk to chair the body. Paul has worked in this House, where he had a fine reputation, and in the Welsh Assembly, so he is perfectly placed to understand the workings of both. I cannot think of an individual who is better informed to carry out this important task, and I wish him well. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) went to the same school at the same time as Paul, so I can vouch for his high academic attainment.

Dyfrig John brings to the table 35 years of experience in financial services, and his financial know-how will be invaluable to the commission. He and I were members of the Development Board for Rural Wales, along with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who was chairman at the time, and Dyfrig was instrumental in maintaining a banking presence in Llandrindod Wells, which on its own would be enough to recommend him for the job.

Professor Noel Lloyd is a distinguished academic from Aberystwyth university, and before he became its highly regarded vice-chancellor he was a practising mathematician, so his ability to do sums means that Wales will not fall into the same trap as Ireland, which underestimated its reserves by €3 billion, or Germany, which did so by €50 billion.

Rob Humphreys, the Liberal Democrat representative, has long been a champion of devolution. He was heavily involved in Swansea’s yes campaign in 1997; he served on the all Wales convention; and he was the Liberal Democrat representative on the yes campaign steering group in 2011. Rob’s leadership of the Open university gives him a knowledge and understanding of young people and adults, and he will bring real expertise to the commission.

I also pay tribute to Nick Bourne, who served the people of mid-Wales very well during his time as an Assembly Member. His commitment to Wales, all things Welsh and, particularly, the Welsh assembly made him an example to all political leaders in Wales—and I look forward to his memoirs.

It is also great to have the ministerial experience of Sue Essex. She became the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services following the 2003 election, so she has first-hand experience of the financial arrangements between Cardiff and Westminster.

Last, but certainly not least, there is Dr ap Gwilym, whose performance against Paxman showed his commitment to, knowledge of and passion for devolution. It is a dedicated and highly talented team with a range of expertise.

It was almost inevitable that we would talk about the Barnett formula, because it is an essential part of delivering a prosperous Wales. I am disappointed that it is not included in the Silk commission’s remit, but I understand that the Welsh Assembly’s Labour First Minister was not keen that it should be included.

I understand that bilateral discussions are taking place between London and Cardiff, and they will include not only the Secretary of State, but the Treasury.