Badgers and Bovine TB

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with her. This is the basis on which the Government are advancing their proposals—nothing better, just the same.

In 2008, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), decided that, based on the evidence, it was not right to risk the cull because it could have made the disease worse. He stated that the then Government would concentrate on other measures, including investing in the development of an effective TB vaccine for both cattle and badgers.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I am encouraged that we are having this debate. What is the vaccine called that the hon. Lady mentioned? My understanding is that no effective vaccine is in place yet, that the trials are ongoing and that frankly, the vaccine does not exist. An injectable vaccine would be incredibly costly and difficult to administer, and would have no effect on badgers that already carry this terrible disease.

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My understanding, from looking at the Wildlife Trust’s vaccine programme in Gloucestershire, is that BCG vaccines are effective. The trust is carrying out that programme by trapping the badgers and injecting them. The trial took place over the summer and the costs are being looked at, but the programme is under way. I am no scientist, but the injections are similar to BCG injections for humans.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady allowing me to intervene again on this important point. I am aware of those Gloucestershire trials, which are important. I declare an interest as a member of the British Veterinary Association, which cares about animals and their welfare. On those trials, it states that

“to conclude from this report that the badger vaccine is a viable alternative to culling in eradicating TB is unrealistic at best and spin at worst.”

The fact is that frankly, trapping a wild badger and trying to inject it and trace it for the next five years—as the hon. Lady has said, there is a large badger population—would be impossible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Glindon]

I accept what my hon. Friend has said. That is the tenet that one hears over and over again.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Lady accept that no one is supporting the policy of a badger free shoot, as has been suggested? We are talking about a limited cull in specific areas, not a free-for-all free shoot.

[Mrs Glindon]

A free shooting policy would mean badgers being shot under licence, but not in a controlled way. We are talking about free shooting at random.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right where there are major borders, but the Welsh border is a tad longer than the River Severn. Towards my constituency, the River Dee is not the Welsh border. If we brought it back to the Welsh border, it might upset some of our Welsh colleagues. Perhaps Offa’s dyke should be the border, but we have had that debate in the House. There is a serious logistical problem, especially in north Wales, in defining where the boundary would be. There would be one policy on one side of a land border, and another on the other side. The same would apply in Scotland. My first message to the Minister—he is trying to address an incredibly difficult problem—is that free shooting has a substantial weakness, unless he can obtain a buy-in from his Scottish and Welsh colleagues. Otherwise, trials of a free shooting policy in those areas are bound to fail.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that to stem the effects of perturbation, good husbandry on both sides of the Welsh or English border would require buffers to stop the movement of badgers anyway. Is his argument not defeated by the practical measures that farmers would take irrespective of what side of the border they were on?

[Andrew Miller]

That is the problem. The hon. Gentleman has significant knowledge of the farming industry. Badgers are fascinating creatures, because they are extremely difficult to control, in the way that would be necessary, by a buffer process. Badgers are habit-forming creatures. Those that cross my land leave a straight line through the grass, and they are so caring about others in the sett that if one goes missing, perhaps because it has been hit by a vehicle, they will go and find its body. They are extraordinary creatures and it will be difficult to create a buffer that works.

I have some sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) about a family who see several badgers in a farm that are suffering from TB. Our humanity means that if we see a creature suffering, we must do something and I would not seek to debar the humane dispatching of a suffering animal. That, however, is not free shooting, which will inevitably take out healthy members of the badger population. The effects of perturbation will be exacerbated because badgers are communal animals and will go looking for partners and friends in new setts should their sett be destroyed. Unless one can guarantee that only those badgers carrying TB will be shot, the risk is that the disease will spread.

It is not mathematically possible to provide a guarantee to the farming community that that policy will work. The question, therefore, is whether such a policy would make any progress, but we must also look at the situation in another way. As has been said, significant work has been carried out on the Gloucester vaccine, which we know works. One would not wish to remove that vaccine where it can be utilised, although we must recognise the problems in administering it.

I think that highest priority should be given to work on the cattle vaccine, and to finding a cross-party agreement and a way to present that scientific evidence through European mechanisms and get agreement on it. One can proceed on a scientific basis, and I urge the House not to go down an extremist route. We all agree that we cannot and would not want to destroy the entire badger population, and all methods currently employed against the disease contain weaknesses. A cattle vaccine is one area that we know is likely to have the greatest success. We must invest in that research and find a cross-party way to take it through European mechanisms and find a solution that is in the interests of both the British countryside and our important farming community.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s excellent peroration. This has been an excellent debate, with passionate and well-informed contributions from all sides. There is great concern on the Opposition Benches about the efficacy and utility of the badger cull envisaged and designed by the Government. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on securing the debate and on the eloquent manner in which she presented her case. There is definitely room in this debate for townies, as well as country folk and everybody in between, because this is a matter of national interest.

I might not be able to take interventions, because I have a series of questions for the Minister, so I apologise in advance. In the mass of statistics and counter-statistics, and arguments and counter-arguments, we must not forget the tragedy of stock destruction, including the emotional cost to farmers and their families, and hon. Members have reminded us of that. The fears and tears of those involved in stock husbandry are real, and many here, myself included, have witnessed them first hand.

Tackling this issue effectively is far more important than simply being seen to do something. Let us start where I hope we can agree: science and evidence must be the foundation when it comes to tackling this terrible disease. They are why the Opposition query the course of action the Government are embarked on, and I want to ask the Minister several key questions.

Let us start with the ISGC’s 2007 report entitled “Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence”. Although we would all acknowledge that there are many considered nuances in the report, this 10-year-long, peer-reviewed, expert-led, science-based study concluded that

“badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB.”

It also noted—presciently, given the Government’s current proposals—

“we consider it likely that licensing farmers (or their appointees) to cull badgers would not only fail to achieve a beneficial effect, but would entail a substantial risk of increasing the incidence of cattle TB and spreading the disease in space, whether licences were issued to individual farmers or to groups.”

That is pretty categoric.

Will the Minister therefore explain why he now so firmly disagrees with those findings and on what scientific and unarguable evidence basis he now feels something must be done, against the advice of this 10-year study? Will he clarify to Members and the country why he has taken against a view that remains the prevailing consensus among those involved in the science and the evidence? Will he explain why the ISGC has taken issue with his claim that his proposals for a cull, which use a very different methodology and different controls from the ISGC trials, would result in a 16% decrease in cattle TB? Why does he have a different figure?

It is important accurately to read into the record the ISGC’s response to the consultation so that the Minister can directly and accurately respond. The ISCG says:

“We note that Defra’s prediction of a 16% overall reduction in cattle TB over a nine year period is extrapolated directly from RBCT findings. This extrapolation assumes that Defra’s proposed culling method would achieve the same outcomes as those of proactive culling as conducted in the RBCT. We have repeatedly cautioned that the outcomes of the RBCT reflected the methods used, most recently noting that ‘the effects described here relate only to culling as conducted in the RBCT, i.e. deployment of cage traps by highly trained staff in coordinated, large scale, simultaneous operations, repeated annually for five years and then halted’. It should not be assumed that farmer led culling, conducted primarily by shooting free ranging badgers, would achieve the same outcomes as RBCT proactive culling.”

Would the Minister also care to share his observations on the clear consensus among responses to his consultation?

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My apologies, but I am really up against time. I would love to have more time.

Will the Minister comment on the observation in the consultation document that

“culling predominantly by shooting free-ranging badgers would result in an increase in perturbation leading to an increase in herd breakdowns. This opinion was based on the assertion that shooting free-ranging badgers would be an ineffective method of control and that in practice farmers would not carry out the systematic, sustained and simultaneous cull that the RBCT proved was necessary to have a beneficial effect…A lack of hard boundaries and a robust means of ensuring compliance with licence criteria were key weaknesses raised with the Government’s preferred option”?

When the Minister answers that question, will he address the concerns of some that a lack of rigour in the methodology he prescribes under licence could actually be to the detriment of farmers and their herds? As the ISGC succinctly put it in its conclusions, it would be

“likely that licensing farmers (or their appointees) to cull badgers would not only fail to achieve a beneficial effect, but would entail a substantial risk of increasing the incidence of cattle TB and spreading the disease in space”.

What science and evidence does the Minister now have that contradicts that scientific evaluation of the increased risk of spreading the disease?

Linked to that, what assessment has the Minister made of the risk of farmers abandoning culling, especially if discouraged by an initial increase in the disease through the effects of perturbation, or as a result of farm abandonment, a change of ownership or many other scenarios? Assuming the Minister would wish to see the cull completed and would perhaps ask others to step in, what legal advice has he received on the ability to enforce a cull on privately owned land once it has commenced and been abandoned by the landowner? Would a group of farmers have to come forward collectively as a legal entity to be able to enforce a cull against the wishes, or following the withdrawal, of one of its members?

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, among others, noted the desirability of vaccination buffer zones around highly infected areas to assist in controlling the spread of the disease. It added that this

“may require the Government to incentivise the process so as to ensure a high enough level of participation.”

What assessment has the Minister made of the necessity for, and cost of, such buffer zones? He will not want to say that he will not know until we have a licence application on the table, because that would be Humphreyesque. He and his officials must have examined the need for such buffer zones and the likely cost implications, and it would be useful for Parliament to have that on the record.

Sir David King wrote an article in July, entitled “If we want dairy farms, we must cull badgers”. The ISGC responded by saying that it

“contributes little scientific insight to the debate on controlling cattle TB. Defra has proposed that badger culls be initiated and funded by farmers themselves. Having overseen a decade-long programme of independently-audited and peer-reviewed research on this topic, we caution that such culls may not deliver the anticipated reductions in cattle TB. King previously agreed with our conclusion that—because of the way culling affects badgers’ ecology—only large-scale, highly coordinated, simultaneous and sustained culls could have positive impacts. Delivering and maintaining such culls would raise substantial challenges for farmers, with a risk of increasing, rather than reducing, disease incidence. Defra’s own assessments suggest that participating farmers will lose more, financially, than they gain. King asserts that shooting free-ranging badgers—Defra’s preferred culling method—‘would be an effective and considerably cheaper alternative’, but there are no empirical data on the cost or effectiveness (or indeed humaneness or safety) of controlling badgers by shooting, which has been illegal for decades. If the government decides to proceed with this untested and risky approach, it is vital that it also instigates well-designed monitoring of the consequences.”

I have some sympathy with the Minister, because the issue has been long debated, and the arguments have been heated and the science disputed. There has, for instance, long been disagreement between Sir David and the ISG. When the original ISG report was published in 2007, Professor John Bourne, its lead author, noted that Sir David’s response and subsequent recommendations in favour of a cull were not consistent with the scientific findings of his report but were

“consistent with the political need to do something about it”.

Why does that sound eerily familiar? Ah yes: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it,” says Jim Hacker, in “Yes Minister”. It is not only animal welfare groups such as the Badger Trust and the RSPCA that demand answers; it is the general public. However, it is also on behalf of and in the best interest of farmers that I ask the Minister to answer the questions as fully and directly as possible. They need to be sure that they are not being sold a pup—a very expensive, incontinent and unruly pup that could do a lot more damage than good.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Natural England is a statutory consultee in the planning process, but I certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking that I will look into the case in question. There is, of course, a balancing act, and Natural England is responsible for ensuring that directives that the previous Government and their predecessors signed up to are complied with correctly, but I will look into that specific case with urgency.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In light of the meeting that is to take place on 25 October between the Secretary of State and the Ministers from the devolved Assemblies across the United Kingdom, will she set out what the agenda for that meeting is going to be? Will she assure us that CAP reform will be on the agenda, and that she will listen carefully to the needs of representatives of the rural regions across the UK and of the 40,000 farmers in Northern Ireland who rely on the CAP as it currently stands?

[Mrs Spelman]

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are due to meet devolved Administration Ministers on 25 October, and agricultural reform is on the agenda. I expect that they will attend the Agriculture Council meeting next week, as I have encouraged them to, and we will work very closely with them. I hope the hon. Gentleman noticed that when I referred to how the Government were looking at CAP reform, I said that we would examine its impact on all parts of the United Kingdom.

Bovine TB

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I commiserate with the hon. Lady on the fact that her part of the world is so badly affected. That is one reason why we want to undertake the pilots in the worst-affected areas, where they are likely to be disproportionately beneficial. I can assure her that the pilots will be rigorously evaluated by an independent panel of scientific experts, veterinary scientists, academic scientists and practitioners. However, we need to be clear that the pilots are to establish the efficacy and humaneness of this method of reducing the population, and are not about the wider question of the science, which had already been established by the randomised badger culling trial. For that reason, I do not think it is remotely likely to take years. It will be more a matter of weeks or months.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Minister on fulfilling an election pledge, and indeed a coalition pledge, in her statement today. While other Members are elsewhere, fulfilling a media cull, it is good to see that DEFRA is going to pursue a cull of an animal that has put into our society great poison among our bovine herd. When people talk about the welfare of a wild animal, they never seem to be concerned about the welfare of our bovine herd. I am glad that we are hearing some sensible talk about protecting a multi-million pound industry, as opposed to protecting cuddly things in the countryside.

Will the Secretary of State share the basis of her scientific evidence with the Northern Ireland Executive, and with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, so that in a part of the United Kingdom where we have suffered from TB in our cattle we can see the scientific information and protect our national herd as well?

Dangerous Dogs

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

With respect to my hon. Friend, that is my exact point. Under the current legislation, if a banned type or breed is drawn to the police’s attention, the police must act, regardless of its behaviour. There is currently no provision for an owner to be able to apply to a court for a seized dog to be returned, and the 1991 Act predicts a dog’s behaviour based on its physical conformation, which, I would contend, is simply wrong.

Indeed, to drift off into the anecdotal, the dog that made me run in the opposite direction fastest during last year’s general election campaign was a golden retriever. That breed is never going to appear on a list of dangerous dogs, but the one that I encountered seemed rather enamoured by the prospect of chewing my leg off. We need to establish in law the principle that it is the deed, not the breed, that determines whether a dog is dangerous or not. That view is widely held, even at the very highest levels of Government.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has indicated, I used to chair the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is a grand place. Whenever we dealt with the issue of legislation, the key point was that it was backed up by adequate resources, so that the police or whoever was responsible for enforcement—it could be another agency, such as a local authority—would be able to enforce it. The most important issue was that the local authority was adequately resourced by central Government. Whatever legislative change the hon. Lady goes for, I urge her to insist that the necessary resources be made available to allow it to take proper effect.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and hope that the Minister will comment on it later.

I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on the range of possible measures to tackle the problem. The possible solutions include dog control notices, compulsory microchipping, muzzling in public places and, importantly, training for owners. Rather than generalising a type or a breed, those are practical suggestions that directly address the specific behaviour and the ways to ameliorate it.

Failure to comply with a dog control notice could lead to the responsible person becoming liable to a fine and potentially being disqualified from owning or keeping a dog for a prescribed period. This issue has been the subject of numerous written and oral questions, consultation and reviews of existing legislation. The issue is not confined to cities, but I highlight the work of the deputy Mayor of London, the Metropolitan police and many hon. and right hon. Members who represent constituencies in the capital, where there are certainly greater issues than in other parts of the country. Yet still we have unsatisfactory legislation that does not address the rise of the so-called status dog, which has impacted on the police and on their ability to carry out their role. The legislation desperately needs updating.

I urge the Minister to publish the Government’s response to the consultation on dangerous dogs, for which we have been waiting a considerable time. Will he also indicate whether he supports the measures in Lord Redesdale’s Bill, and whether he will consider introducing compulsory microchipping? I am the first to acknowledge that that is a measure of traceability rather than prevention, but it was simply not an option in 1991 when the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced. Microchipping was first introduced in the UK in about 2000. The procedure is now commonplace and can be carried out by not only vets but registered practitioners, which has brought down the cost. I appreciate that microchipping will inevitably be most prevalent among the law-abiding majority, but it will indelibly link dog to owner and provide an important step forward.

Obviously there will need to be a register that is updated at every change of ownership, but dogs do not change hands that often. The vast majority of owners have dogs for life and, although I understand concerns that a register will be another imposition on responsible citizens, it will also be a way to steadily move towards a situation in which owners are accountable and dogs behaving in an antisocial way are identifiable. If there is no excuse for mistaken identity, enforcement officers will be able to judge the deed not the breed.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Friends of the Earth and its many activists across the UK and, indeed, the world for the support and commitment that they have shown on this crucial issue. I am indebted to Martyn Williams and his team for the hours of work put in to bring the Bill forward. I should also like to thank Dairy UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Soil Association, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the National Farmers Union, Compassion in World Farming and many other groups for talking to me about their views on this matter.

A number of people have asked why a Member of Parliament who clearly enjoys his food, and who represents an urban constituency and one of the more deprived areas of the country, should be bothered about how animals are reared for food production. As I intend to explain, it is precisely for those reasons and more that the Bill must make progress through the House.

Let me illustrate my point. Many people watching this debate will see adverts depicting animals being reared on pasture. It is not without good reason that the marketing staff of a certain burger chain show images of green fields and cattle grazing. They want consumers to believe that their burgers are healthy and natural. Equally, a dairy company ad shows a child bringing a glass of milk from the cow in the field to the dairy door to make into yoghurt. Why do they show such images? Because it is a natural instinct to equate ruminants with pasture grazing, yet the truth is something that the ad men wish to shield us from.

The reality is that, with some exceptions, our livestock are no longer grazed on natural pasture out in the fields, where traditional hardy breeds can live all year round. Our livestock are now routinely kept indoors for anything up to the whole year, and are fed on cereals, especially imported soya. Hardy breeds are being phased out in favour of high-yielding, carefully selected animals. The more I have dug into the subject, the more troubling I have found it. There have been books and papers galore written about the issues. There are seminars and discussions taking place on the subject across the globe even as I speak. At the risk of making what is perhaps quite a suitable pun, it really was a case of opening up a can of worms.

The United Nations report, “Livestock’s long shadow”, notes that livestock farming is among the two or three most significant contributors to global climate change on every scale from local to global. It has calculated that from 18% to as much as 51% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gases come from livestock production. Some organisations will say that that is a myth, or else that the answer to the adverse effects is even greater industrialisation of livestock production. Indeed, some will say that it is all a vegetarian conspiracy or similar, designed to stop us eating meat or to put British farmers out of business. Rubbish.

Some of the drivers behind climate change are hidden. For example, the production of soya in south America requires high-nitrate fertilisers and weedkillers, and there are greenhouse gas emissions from both the production of those fertilisers and chemical sprays and their transportation to farms. There is also the high energy use involved in harvesting the soya and transporting it halfway round the world to Europe for use in animal feeds. As I shall go on to say, the land clearance to grow the soya also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and causes further climate change.

It is not just greenhouse gases that are an issue; there is the direct impact on people, too. The number of farms in the UK has declined, and with them, the number of farmers and their workers. Thankfully, the vast majority of farms are still smaller, family-run businesses in rural areas, but for how long? The advent of dairy super-sheds, such as the one proposed in Nocton in Lincolnshire, with its 8,000 head of cattle, can only hasten the demise of both the smaller British farmer and the rural economy that he or she supports. Our British farmers who get caught up in the vicious cycle of intensification are then at the mercy of soya prices, with their direct link to world oil prices.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the entire UK agricultural industry is responsible for just 7% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that our industry’s emissions have already fallen by 21% since 1990?

[Robert Flello]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the figures depend on how one measures emissions and where one puts the marker down, as organisations such as Dairy UK are more than prepared to accept.

It is not only in the UK that people are adversely affected by the issue. I met an activist from Paraguay who told me about the subsistence farmers in his country. They are forced off their land, either by the big-money soya farmers who are taking over vast tracts of their countryside, or through the indiscriminate use of glyphosate weedkillers, which are sprayed without consideration on to the genetically modified soya crops, poisoning the land and the water supply and, horrifically, in too many cases, killing and injuring local citizens. There are problems not just in Paraguay; in the cerrado area of Brazil, there were over 900 species of birds and 10,000 different species of plant. The cerrado or savannah has now been reduced to half its original size because of land clearance to grow soya and biofuels. The same applies to rainforests and other parts of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and again, those are the issues that we really need to tease out in Committee.

The purpose of my Bill is not, contrary to what some have suggested, to add to the bureaucratic burden on farmers; that is nonsense. No one will find anything in the Bill that does that. Quite the opposite; the Bill says that the Secretary of State will have an obligation to ensure that British farmers are kept in their jobs.

[Ian Paisley]

Clause 1(2)(e) refers to

“changing the subsidies available to…support…farmers to promote sustainable livestock practices”.

Any change to the subsidy will have an impact on the application process that a farmer has to go through. That will put a practical burden on the farmer. Indeed, trying to adjust subsidies in the European Community is against World Trade Organisation and common agricultural policy practices and policies. I accept that the hon. Gentleman’s motivation is very positive, but the practical impact will be to impose red tape and a burden on farmers.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman. He will find that the CAP subsidy system is up for review in the next couple of years and there may well be changes anyway. That is even more of a reason to ensure that the future subsidy system operates in a way that is both efficient and effective for the farmer, but also promotes sustainability.

My Bill simply requires the Secretary of State to think about how every policy he works on can improve sustainability. It has been said by some that legislation is not needed—indeed, I am expecting speeches on that point very shortly—and that the Government could simply implement policies that tackle the problem. I wish that were the case. To my regret, the previous Government, despite documents such as “Food 2030”, which acknowledged the impact of soya on climate change, did not take action on that. I am sad to say that the coalition Government thus far have issued the natural environment White Paper, but the Department’s own business plan for 2011 to 2015 has no mention of the impact of soya. Clearly, legislation is definitely needed. My Bill is a “direction of travel” Bill that gives the Secretary of State wide leeway, but nevertheless requires her to take sustainable livestock seriously, and to take action.

I know that there will be some in this Chamber who, for whatever reason, will be unhappy about the Bill, so for them let me quote some words from a 2008 speech:

“Calorie for calorie, you need more grain if you eat it transformed into meat than you do if you eat it turned into bread…As a result, farmers now feed 250 million more tonnes of grain to their animals than they did twenty years ago. That’s enough wheat to feed the population of Brazil—for twenty-five years.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition in 2008. He identified the scale of the problem, but sadly not a single policy has found its way into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to do anything about it as yet—I hope it does. That is why we need the Bill, and why I hope that hon. Members across the Chamber will allow the Bill to pass today unopposed into Committee, where we can sort out the detail, have the discussions, get people around the table, which is exactly what the Bill proposes. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will engage in robust debate, but then move on to the subsequent business of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, to which I shall refer later. One of the major problems with the Bill before us is that it is not clear on specifics. There is a danger that all we are doing, ultimately, is leaving the matter to be decided by the courts.

The effect of the Bill will be that the Secretary of State has no alternative but to increase the rules and regulations for the nation’s farmers. It will serve only to damage the prospects of our farming communities.

[Ian Paisley]

Clause 1(4) highlights one of the problems which the Bill, if enacted, could create—that is, the importation of meats and foods from other countries, in particular Brazil. It identifies the problem by stating that further action would need to be taken by the Government to ensure that it did not

“lead to an increase in the proportion of meat consumed in the United Kingdom which is imported.”

The very fact that the Bill identifies that problem suggests to me that it will create that problem.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, which I will deal with. The clause is, in many ways, a fig leaf. It tries to give the impression that everything will be all right because the Secretary of State must take into account the amount of meat consumed in this country and should not do anything that would increase, the proportion of imported meat consumed in the United Kingdom.

Two dangers arise from that. First, the provision slightly contradicts the rest of the Bill and would put the Secretary of State in a difficult position. Secondly, clause 1(4), which I shall come to later, makes no reference to dairy products, which are excluded. It is purely about meat eating. There is no reference to milk, cheese, butter or other dairy products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. It is worth noting that the Labour party had 13 years in government to legislate in the manner that the Bill suggests. It chose not to do so. As my hon. Friend says, there were a number of initiatives to try to meet the Bill’s objectives.

It seems reasonable to assume that the only way in which the Secretary of State can ever hope to comply with all her duties would be to impose new rules on food manufacturers and packagers. In fact, clause 1(4) places on the Secretary of State

“a duty to ensure that the steps taken in accordance with this Act do not lead to an increase in the proportion of meat consumed in the United Kingdom which is imported.”

I see why such a provision is considered necessary; subsection (4) gives the game away. It is clear from it that those promoting the Bill fully realise that its effect will be to increase the burden of regulation and red tape on Britain’s farmers. In turn, the cost of British meat will increase and inevitably lead to an increase in imports. In what I submit would be a futile attempt to stop that happening, the Bill attempts to legislate to prevent market forces from working.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a YouGov survey has demonstrated that 80% of consumers would buy cheaper meat regardless of whether its production had involved fewer CO₂ emissions? Therefore, because of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, it is impossible for the Secretary of State to prevent the influx of cheap meat. The demand would be there. The motive of the person promoting the Bill may be fine and good, but the Bill will not do what it says on the tin. It will inflict on our industry a huge increase in foreign, cheap meat from Brazil.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions should be short and stick to the point of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on being so successful in the ballot and on bringing the Bill before the House. As he knows from my interventions and from a private conversation, I am not entirely in favour of his Bill, but I do congratulate him on securing this debate. It is important because it has brought the issue of agriculture back to the House and given us the opportunity to have an important discussion about where we want one of our most important producing industries—indeed, our critical producing industry—to go. This industry puts food in the bellies of our people and will determine the health of our nation, and this is an important debate for those reasons.

One of the best things that we do as a country—whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—is produce high-quality, traceable, nutritious food that is also profitable. We should be proud of that fact. We should encourage the industry and do everything we can not only to sustain it but to develop it and to ensure that the food that is produced in this nation is some of the best in the world and, indeed, the envy of the world.

We, and indeed the Minister and the Government, face a real challenge in ensuring that that happens, because there are many pressures on our food producers and farmers. We should do all we can to promote their livelihood and their industry. We should not succumb to siren calls to change our practices unless we are utterly convinced that those changes will perfect and develop further an industry that is crucial to our people.

We need to put into perspective some of the points that have been made about our industry. The livestock sector—beef, dairy, pig, poultry and sheep production—contributed £2.3 billion to agri-food output in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures were available. Of that, approximately 72%, or almost £1.65 billion, was sold outside Northern Ireland. That means that we run a very successful export industry, and it is called the food industry.

We should be careful about doing anything that changes the careful balance in our marketplace. The Bill could affect that balance detrimentally. I do not believe that that is the intention of its promoter, but it could be the effect. We should remember that more than 20,000 people are directly employed in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland alone. Tens of thousands more are employed across the rest of the United Kingdom.

What are the devolved Government of Northern Ireland and, by extension, the other devolved Governments across the United Kingdom doing to ensure that we address some of the matters that have been brought before us as a result of the Bill’s trajectory? The Climate Change Act 2008 is already in place, and action is being taken. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Programme for Government has a target for a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors in the next 15 years.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman may not know that the Climate Change Act relates to emissions in this country and cannot possibly make any impact on, for example, deforestation in Argentina and Brazil. This Bill is designed to do that.

[Ian Paisley]

I accept that point and I will discuss it when I deal with that aspect of the Bill, which, I believe, reflects the promoter’s gut instinct.

Our stakeholder group in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was formed at the end of July last year and wishes to consider how best to reduce greenhouse gases in the agricultural sector in Northern Ireland while remaining competitive in the marketplace. Our devolved Government have already taken several steps to address the issue, and I know that that also applies to the other devolved regions and to central Government in Westminster.

Do we need more legislation? Parliaments have a propensity to legislate when there is no need to do so. We should be careful not to load more bureaucracy—legislation for legislation’s sake—on to industry and the production of food. That is a key reason for my opposition to the Bill.

Given that work is already under way genuinely to address the problems, there should be no need for more legislative interventionism. Indeed, it would create additional bureaucracy and be less effective in delivering the necessary meaningful improvements and have an adverse impact on the agri-food industry.

There are three tests that the Bill must pass. The first is the economic sustainability test, which I believe it Bill fails. As I said, about £20 billion-worth of food is produced in the United Kingdom, and the Bill would force the Government to try to compel the new, ongoing common agricultural policy negotiations to change the subsidy rules so that every hectare of farm land in the United Kingdom would have to receive an increase in subsidy of between £100 and £200. For the life of me, I do not see the current European Union increasing food and farm subsidy in the current CAP negotiations. I wish that it would; it is not a realistic prospect, yet that needs to happen for the Bill to be effective. It will not happen in 2013, and we would therefore be arguing for something that is detrimental to the economy.

Production-limited support is contrary to World Trade Organisation regulations. If something is contrary to the CAP and WTO regulations, the likelihood of our getting an increase in the subsidy is small. The cost for farmers of having to purchase in a particular way in order to produce in a more carbon-efficient way would mean an additional burden and would be detrimental to the industry. Ultimately, who will lose? The farmer will put his hand in his pocket again and spend the money, but you, Mr Hoyle, I and the consumer will lose, because food prices will go up. Instead of good-quality, traceable food at a reasonable price, we will have more expensive food. The consumer will ultimately lose out.

What will the consumers do? They will do what all the polls tell us: they will buy not the high-quality food that is produced in the United Kingdom but the cheap, imported food, which will flood into the United Kingdom, further damaging our agricultural sector. In the past few years, we have fought against cheap meat from Brazil. If it is made even more accessible to our markets, when our consumers go to Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda, they will fill their trolleys with cheap Brazilian imports. Why? Because they are cheaper, and that is what will drive the consumer. We should realise that. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that such prices will make us want to become vegetarians or vegans; they will just make us want to buy cheaper food. That is a genuine downside to the Bill, so it fails the economic test.

The Bill also fails the social test. My constituency is made up of lowland and hill farming, and there is a certain shape and scope to our land. A previous contributor described it as God-given beauty. It has been shaped by the grazing habits that farmers have introduced. Under the Bill, that would change. It will become more expensive to graze our animals on the uplands because it will be more expensive to import the food for them. The shape of our land would therefore change dramatically, so the social impact would not be as effective as the Bill suggests.

The Bill also fails the environmental test. It would use the sledgehammer of environmental protectionism to crack a nut. The entire UK agriculture industry is responsible for only 7% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and our emissions have already fallen by 21% since 1990.

John F. Kennedy memorably said:

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie… but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

We have heard some myths today which should be debunked. The Bill has an admirable aim to stop deforestation, but it will not do that. The House could pass the measure and say, “We want to stop deforestation,” but the Bill will contribute nothing to that aim. Indeed, its very publication contributes to deforestation because it needs paper. We must recognise the myth.

Another myth is that livestock will be raised indoors—that we will drive through our land and see great big silos and sheds where our livestock is raised. However, when I drive through my constituency, I see cattle and sheep in the fields.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman know that there is currently a planning application for a dairy farm in Lincolnshire, which will have more than 8,000 cows indoors practically throughout the year? There is also an application in Derbyshire for a pig farm that will host about 26,000 pigs. That is the direction in which the UK agricultural sector is moving. It is similar to what happens in some parts of eastern Europe and in America. That is a fact.

[Ian Paisley]

I accept that those two applications have been made—two applications in a massive industry. The planning service has the ability to restrict and reduce those plans if it considers them detrimental to the countryside. It is a myth that all farming will take place indoors. That cannot happen—milk cannot be obtained from cattle that are raised indoors.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am interested in the Minister’s response to that point, because when I criticised the move towards raising cows indoors, he told me recently at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions that I needed to go away and learn something more about dairy farming.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady can take that up with the Minister if she wishes. However, it is unrealistic to claim that, as we drive from the north of Scotland to the south of Devon, all that we will see in our countryside are huge sheds, inside which are animals that will never see the light of day. That is preposterous. It will not happen. It is a scare tactic that undermines the promoter’s good intention.

[Simon Hart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that milking dairy cows is only one part of the dairy industry? Farmers also have calves and young stock, and produce beef—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of going into a general debate. This is not a general debate—we must stick to the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We should get back to the point made by the Minister: the Bill will not affect cattle; it will have more of an effect on poultry and pig production.

In my constituency, there are 8,000 poultry producers. Those 8,000 farmers must raise poultry to compete efficiently and effectively with Brazil and other world producers. We export a lot of the poultry to the rest of the United Kingdom and across Europe. Indeed, most of the poultry that hon. Members eat—if they buy it in Marks and Spencer or Tesco—has been raised in my constituency, which is why it is so incredibly tasty. I encourage people to continue to buy it. By buying Moy Park and O’Kane Poultry produce, people are giving a vote of confidence to our local farming traditions. We should be proud of what we purchase and raise on our farms, and recognise that that productivity encourages and sustains jobs in the agri sector. Surely that is in all our interests. If we tamper with that and accept the myth that we are going to save a rain forest, we will lose jobs and end up buying poultry that is in fact produced in places where rain forests have been cleared—in other words, Brazil. That the Bill will stop the import of Brazilian-produced poultry or beef is a myth.

Another myth is that we require this legislation. We do not. It is in the interests of farming to be sustainable and to produce nutritional, clean and traceable food and to convince consumers across the United Kingdom and Europe of that. We therefore do not require legislation, because a good businessman—at the end of the day, farmers are good businessmen—will want to appeal to the marketplace, and the market wants good, clean, traceable and nutritional food. I hope that that produce is also profitable for the farmer.

Yet another myth is that the Bill will do what it says on the tin. It will not. It will do none of the things it says it will do. We need to recognise that even if we endorse the Bill and encourage such legislation, it will not do what it is supposed to do, which is to help our industry.

Let me appeal to the House. We all have different interests, but our key interest is keeping our people in employment. Farming is a key employer in my constituency and my country, and we should encourage, support and sustain it. We should not do anything that would undermine it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

The honest answer is no, but the costs would be considerable. In this time of major economic constraint, DEFRA clearly does not have the resources for this; a reduction in its overall budget has already been announced. Also, as my hon. Friend said in his excellent speech, the cost of the measures and of regulating them would have a considerable impact on the industry.

There are a number of reasons why the Bill is not the right way forward. I believe in the partnership approach of working with the industry that I have outlined. We are ready to show the necessary leadership and resolve to challenge the industry to act sustainably. That is the best way of producing the results to which we and the Bill aspire. Most of our farming leaders and the farming and food businesses they represent understand the Government’s resolve to ensure a sustainable future for livestock, farming and food.

We hope and expect the agricultural industry’s climate change task force to deliver its commitments to a greenhouse gas action plan with tangible measures for on-farm abatement. I hope that the plan will be published in the next few weeks. We will review it in 2012 and be ready to take the necessary steps should it seem unlikely to deliver the progress on farm-level abatement that we need.

We want to encourage all parts of the livestock industry to challenge themselves in thinking about the sustainability of their sectors and to set challenging goals for pro-environmental behaviours. In this time of restraint, and with the Government’s overriding priority of reducing the deficit, we need to focus resources on where they can make the most difference rather than on the statutory reporting and monitoring envisaged in the Bill.

Unsurprisingly, I repeat that the Government cannot support the Bill. Although its general sentiment is admirable, its terms are too broad, the duties it would impose on the Secretary of State are too ill defined and, indeed, undeliverable, and it is not consistent with the partnership approach that we want to engender. Let me return, therefore, to my earlier offer. Rather than impose additional layers of reporting, we would like to offer something substantive: our participation in a conference of interested parties in the first half of next year to take stock of the progress made by the UK livestock sectors in delivering sustainability objectives. I look to interested parties to set up and host the conference, but I give a commitment that either the Secretary of State or I will attend it. A year after the conference, DEFRA would report on the role of all parties with an interest in the sustainability of our livestock industry.

[Ian Paisley]

The conference proposal is valuable, but will the Minister ensure that it will be open to the devolved regions and organisations such as the Ulster Farmers Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend rightly brings a cautionary tale to bear on this. My parents used to keep two pigs—one was called Humpty, and the other Dumpty. We used to feed them all the food waste, and there was never an outbreak of foot and mouth disease as a result. Those pigs were very healthy, and, because it was a time of rationing, when they were slaughtered we did not keep all the meat ourselves, but shared it among the people in a sort of collectivist action.

[Ian Paisley]

Do you think they’d swallow your speech?

[Mr Chope]

I was pausing to take breath, so I failed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I am sure that it was very witty and pertinent, and I look forward to reading it in the Official Report in due course.

My next point is one that my hon. Friend the Minister made. It is about the need to concentrate on putting resources where they can really deliver some good. Effectively, what he was saying was that if the Bill was to pass into law and these onerous duties were imposed on him, his Department would have to transfer resources from where they are being deployed at the moment to other areas. That would be a mistake. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State have a grip on the best allocation of resources within their Department to meet the Government’s policy objectives. If they were diverted from doing that by what is contained in the Bill, that would be a matter of regret.

My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the £2.9 billion that the Government are giving to deal with global climate change. That is a far more focused approach than that adopted by the Bill’s promoter, and it is regrettable that he did not refer to it in his opening speech. He might have said, “I respect and applaud the fact that the Government are doing so much in these areas, and this Bill is, in many respects, designed to encourage them to go further.” However, the Government do not need to be encouraged to go any further—they are doing more than sufficient with that £2.9 billion, which is, in anybody’s language, a significant sum of money.

My hon. Friend made an important point that is perhaps sometimes forgotten by those of us who mow our grass too regularly during the growing season—that grassland is itself a reservoir of potential carbon emissions. That introduces yet another set of conundrums and dilemmas in relation to promoting healthy livestock production while ensuring that we do not increase CO₂ or CO₂-equivalent emissions.

One part of my hon. Friend’s speech that he glossed over rather too quickly for my liking concerned clause 1(3), which says:

“The Secretary of State must ensure that policies in relation to negotiations and other activities at international level, including at the European Union, are consistent with sections 1(1) and 1(2)”

of the Bill as enacted. If my hon. Friend had been perfectly frank with the House, he would have said that there is no way that that is ever going to happen unless we withdraw from the European Community.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for laying the runway for me to take flight today, and for touching at the end of his speech on some very poignant issues, which are relevant to many Members of all parties. He talked about supporting our troops, supporting employment and job development, and supporting cancer patients. That last issue is personally relevant to me and my family, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s call that this Government must release funding to ensure certain cancer drugs are available for cancer sufferers, so they do not have to pay for them themselves. I support that call.

All new Members are awestruck when we enter the Chamber. There is anticipation about what lies before us as parliamentarians, and we are also fully aware of the history of this place. I was graciously mentioned by speakers in Tuesday’s debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). They both encouraged me by saying, “Don’t worry, it’s okay to be talked about in this place. It’s when you’re not talked about that things are not so good.” They gave me a very warm welcome: they said, “Welcome home.”

Being welcomed home here is a bit more relevant to me than it might be to some other Members whose fathers have sat on these Benches for 40 years or so—I am thinking of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), although he beats me in one regard, as his father sat on these Benches for 50 years. Although it was said earlier that most people leave this House to spend more time with their family, I suppose it could be said that I come to this House to spend a little more time with my family members, who have sat in this House or sit in the other place now. It is therefore good to be here.

I have to follow in giant footsteps. My constituency boasts the Giant’s Causeway and I have to follow, ever so lightly, in the footsteps of a giant public representative, who represented North Antrim for four decades and made the case on behalf of its people without fear or favour. He made an imprint on not only Ulster politics, the politics of this House and British politics, but on Irish politics, and I salute him for the stand that he made. I know that when making a maiden speech one has to say something complimentary about one’s predecessors. One hon. Member advised me that I could use parliamentary privilege to say what I want about my father, but I must say that what you see is what you get with him; there is nothing else to tell hon. Members, and perhaps that will come as a relief to many.

I am very proud of the former Member of Parliament for North Antrim, my father, who represented the constituency so well. He set me a challenge before the election, saying, “If you don’t get elected, you are no son of mine.” I am glad that the 19,000-odd people who voted for me confirmed my parentage on election day and did not leave me with that scar. As I say, it is a privilege to follow someone who has been not just part of history, but a history maker. That greatly encourages me and I salute my father, the former Member, today.

Given the longevity of my father’s service, I do not have many texts to look back through to read maiden speeches made by former Members for North Antrim. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to warn you that the previous maiden speech made by a Member for the constituency was considered to have broken every rule in the book. By all accounts, it was far too long and was definitely controversial—the Member was called to order while making his speech—and I understand that, at times, it was even far too loud. I hope that you will indulge me today; I will not commit any of those misdemeanours. Perhaps on other occasions you will indulge us Ulster Members as we continue our controversies from time to time.

The contrast between the time when the former Member for North Antrim made his maiden speech in 1970 and the time when I do so could not be more stark. When he made his speech, Ulster was tearing itself apart; there was civil unrest, economic uncertainty and political instability. I am glad that today, when I have the privilege of making my maiden speech on behalf of the electors of North Antrim, we know that the helplessness has given way to hope and that the heartache has given way to heart rejoicing, and we see that terrorism has been turned on its head and that there has been a dramatic change in the situation in Northern Ireland. It has lead to hope and to economic opportunity, despite the cuts being threatened by the Government. It is an opportunity for all the people, and I welcome that. I look forward to working in this Parliament to make that hope become a reality for all my constituents and all the people of Northern Ireland, because that is incredibly important.

I also believe that instead of terror being the order of the day, criminality has, in many instances, taken over in Northern Ireland, as it has in any other part of this United Kingdom. The Independent Monitoring Commission reported on Northern Ireland yesterday, but by and large terrorism has been checked, although problems with dissident republicans remain. I am aware that combating crime is as relevant to dealing with the issues in my constituency and my country as it is to dealing with issues in the rest of this nation. I wish to concentrate my remarks and make an appeal to this Government on combating crime.

Fuel smuggling and fuel laundering in Northern Ireland account for a loss to the Exchequer of £245 million a year, but it could be stopped almost immediately. It could be checked, with the criminals put in the dock, and people whose lawful trade is affected by smuggling would see it brought to an end. How can that be done? I shall make two suggestions and I hope that this Government are listening. I hope that they will reduce fuel duty in regions such as Northern Ireland. It shares a land border with another member state whose duty is lower than ours and therefore attracts the smugglers. The Government should fingerprint or DNA our fuel, so that it is impossible to launder and so that we can catch the culprits involved in that illegal trade. I hope that the Government will do that and make moves to build on some of the development work that was done by the previous Administration, who were examining that approach as a way forward. I also appeal to this Government not to increase that duty in a region whose energy costs are already so high that they are disproportionate. They affect business and the wherewithal of the economy to cope at this time. I hope that the Government are listening to that plea.

I shall conclude by commenting about my constituency. Although I was attracted by many of the remarks made by some of my colleagues in their maiden speeches about how wonderful their constituencies are, I believe that my constituency is the finest constituency—not because it has returned me but because it is a wonderful place. It has the geographic splendours of the Giant’s Causeway and the Slemish mountain and enjoys some wonderful cities that have brought forward some wonderful people. For example, the market town of Ballymoney brought forward my sporting heroes—the motorcycle racers Joey Dunlop and Robert Dunlop. The market town of Ballymena is known as the city of the seven towers and I hope that during my tenure as Member of Parliament, Ballymena will get city status and become a city not just in name but by charter. There is, of course, the holiday resort of Ballycastle and the 20 or so villages in between that make up the backbone of a large rural constituency that boasts tobacco manufacturing, bus making and whiskey brewing in the oldest whiskey distillery in the United Kingdom, and indeed in the world, Bushmills. Of course, we also have the manufacture of tyres at Michelin and of agri-food, which is probably our largest single industry. Those industries alone employ the vast bulk of people in my constituency.

Today, we are dealing with DEFRA issues, and I was disappointed that the Queen’s Speech said very little about agri-food production, as I believe that agri-food production is the way forward. It certainly is for my part of the United Kingdom. It is important in creating jobs, employment and development. I wish that there was a little more coming from those on the Government Front Bench about frustrating a European agenda that is clearly against Northern Ireland producing its food, and which frustrates the production of that food. I hope that the Government and this Parliament will stand up to those who would seek to frustrate us in the production of our food, just as we stand up to other more powerful nations, such as Brazil, Argentina and other countries across Europe, that produce milk, beef and lamb. I hope that we will get support from the Government. One way that they could do that would be to make good on the promise that was made before the election about an ombudsman for the supermarkets. I hope that that is done, because it will be essential in stopping the perception that prices are fixed.

I want our farmers to be a success. I want to see new talent and new blood coming into farms. Although I am delighted that my father worked until he was 84, I meet farmers every day who are still working at 84 and their 50-year-old sons cannot get into farming. I want to see their grandsons getting into farming and that will only happen if the Government stand up to support our agri-industry.