Anti-freeze Products (Protection of Animals)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on raising awareness of the problems that can arise from the misuse of anti-freeze products, especially at this time of year. As he said, he takes no joy in having to come to this Chamber to raise the issue. I completely understand that the death by poisoning of such a large number of cats in Calverton has caused immense stress to the families involved. Every one of those 22 cats would have been a loved family pet. The situation is made all the worse by knowing that, as he pointed out, death by poisoning by this particular product is quite painful—that will have caused a great deal of stress to the families concerned.

I understand that the RSPCA is investigating the case and that a meeting was held recently with police and villagers to discuss the issue. The cause and circumstances, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are not clear at this stage, but the high number of deaths in one village during the summer suggests something more sinister than a simple accident.

It is important to recognise that deliberate poisoning is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and is punishable by a fine of up to £20,000 and/or six months’ imprisonment. I do not know why anyone would want to poison cats deliberately by using anti-freeze, but there have been such instances in the recent past and they have been dealt with using the full force of the law. For example, in July a man was convicted of using anti-freeze to poison five cats and was fined £1,600. In April, another man received a 12-week suspended prison sentence for poisoning a cat with anti-freeze. As my hon. Friend said, it is too early to know whether the poisoning in Calverton was intentional or accidental.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Constituents have come to me when their cats have been the victims of anti-freeze poisoning, and I have met representatives of groups such as International Cat Care. I have also met Marc Abraham, the television vet who ran the successful Pup Aid campaign. They all say that this is a problem and that many cats that die of this poisoning are not identified as such.

I have tabled written questions about this issue. The Government say that the fact that alternatives are on the market that would not kill cats and that there is a focus on better labelling is enough to stop people from accidentally poisoning cats. However, as the Minister just said, some people are poisoning cats deliberately and those things will not stop them.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and I will come back to it. Ultimately, if anti-freeze included a bittering agent and if that deterred animals from taking anti-freeze in any circumstances, that still would not deal with the problem of people deliberately setting out to poison cats and other animals. They would simply find a different weapon of choice. We must recognise that and be very clear first and foremost that when deliberate poisoning takes place, that is a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and we should prosecute accordingly.

Badger Culls (Assessment)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Main]

I absolutely condemn anyone who sabotages experiments, and I condemn anyone who puts any of our armed forces, police or anyone else involved, including protesters, in any danger. However, my hon. Friend must accept that passions are running high because logical arguments are being made in various debates and by panels that I have chaired, but people are not listening. If we are to prevent sabotage, which is obviously a last resort for some people, we must ensure that genuine concerns are listened to.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I went down to Somerset recently to meet some of the people monitoring the culls. They are there not to sabotage them, but to ensure that the rules are obeyed and that badgers are not shot and left wounded to die slowly and painfully. They are there to ensure that the rules are kept. I met a farmer who did not want to take part in the cull pilot, but wanted to vaccinate her cattle. She had to stand guard at midnight at the gates to her farm to stop people coming on to her land and trying to shoot badgers. It is wrong to categorise anyone who protests against and monitors the culls as trying to sabotage them. They are just trying to ensure fairness.

[Mrs Main]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will not labour the point, but my constituents, who have written to me in their hundreds, have lost confidence in the rationale and the way the problem is being tackled. No one is disputing that there is a problem, but we still do not know how many badgers were killed after having been cage-trapped, when that was expressly excluded originally.

I do not believe that the Government’s method of choice will deliver what the farmers and the Government want, so we must look at the matter again. I for one, and hundreds of people in St Albans who care about the humaneness of the approach, believe that the Government are foolish not to listen to two failures. I do not accept that activists have ruined the trials; I suspect that the badger does not wish to comply with the trials, that the marksmanship has not been up to the job, and that the original premise of using free shooting instead of cage shooting was never a realistic means of dealing with the problem. We must come up with an alternative proposal, and I suggest that cattle movements, vaccination and other methods that do not inflict cruelty on another animal species are the way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Earlier this year we announced 37 candidate sites for the second tranche of marine conservation zones and we intend to publish a consultation on the second tranche in the new year. It is our intention to have a third tranche in 2016, so the work to take forward additional marine conservation zones is well under way.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

But a lot of the work has already been done. For example, a huge amount of research was done on whether the 127 marine conservation zones were economically viable. When will the Minister actually start designating the zones that are needed if we are to have an ecologically coherent marine conservation network?

[George Eustice]

We have started designating them. The first 27 were designated a year ago and, as I said, we are consulting on the second tranche. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is doing a huge amount of work—it did a lot of work this summer. We spent around £10 million on research to get the best evidence we can so that these decisions are informed by the scientific evidence. That work is going on, and we plan to do this in three tranches, as we have made clear all along.

National Pollinator Strategy

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Let me add my voice to those of the Members who have already welcomed the introduction of a national pollinator strategy—although with a degree of impatience, given that we do not yet have the final version.

I had intended to focus for a while on pesticides and, in particular, on my concerns about lobbying by chemical companies and whether the Government accept the scientific risk assessments, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) has more than done justice to that issue, and several other Members have mentioned it as well. In the limited time available, therefore, I shall concentrate on urban pollination, a subject that I do not think has been raised today.

Needless to say, Bristol is at the forefront of some of the work that is currently being done. Professor Jane Memmott of the university of Bristol has drawn attention to the “huge diversity of sites” that cities contain not just gardens, but meadows, nature reserves and parks. They may, in fact, offer a greater diversity and abundance of flowers that can be found in the countryside. Modern farming practices that promote crop monocultures often leave little room for wild flowers.

The “urban pollinators” project, led by Dr Katherine Baldock and Professor Jane Memmott at the university of Bristol in collaboration with three other UK universities, has been doing a great deal of research on just how important urban environments are. Let me quote a few statistics. Apparently, 50% of Germany’s entire bee fauna have been found in Berlin, 35% of British hoverfly species were sampled in a single Leicester garden, and honey bees produce more honey in urban Birmingham than in the surrounding countryside. The project is mapping and comparing pollinator habitats in cities, farms and nature reserves throughout the country. In Bristol, it has been working in partnership with the city council's “meadow Bristol” project to plant nectar and pollen-rich flower meadows in our public parks, school playing fields and road verges, turning them into a haven for pollinating insects among the bricks and concrete.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Let me first say how sorry I am to have missed the opening speeches, and not to have been able to make a speech myself. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene, because I can now make a point that I should have liked to make earlier. I think that golf courses throughout Britain, in both urban and rural areas, have a massive potential to deliver the results that the hon. Lady wants. Some are already starting to do so, but we need to ensure that that goes much further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not play golf, but I have seen reports suggesting that it is the least environmentally beneficial sport because of its huge water footprint. If it can make some redress for that by planting plenty of wild flowers, it will at least be doing its bit.

Next year Bristol will be the European green capital, and in preparation for that we are doing some exciting work under the banner “Get Bristol Buzzing”. We have a “bee summit” coming up, which some Members might like to attend. The action group is leading a greater Bristol pollinator strategy, and we are examining ways of implementing it at local level. I pay particular tribute to the St George in Bloom group. A constituent of mine, Grenville Johnson, is a really inspiring man who has done a huge amount of work for the group, and it has just been announced that it is the winner of the Royal Horticultural Society’s South West in Bloom award 2014.

In my constituency, as in many other constituencies, this is the age of car ownership and many incredibly busy people are paving over their front gardens to give them parking spaces and going for the low maintenance option of decking-in their back gardens, as opposed to having grass and flowerbeds. Grenville is trying to reverse this trend a bit by encouraging people at least to have hanging baskets or window boxes. His street is an amazing display of bright colours hanging from the lampposts and on the grass verges. His group has been working with the residents association to create a community garden in an area of unadopted land. It has planted a wild flower meadow in St George park, and it is teaching local people basic things about gardening and how to pot plants. He has now applied for green capital funds to implement the local pollinator strategy. There are also initiatives such as providing free seeds and plants to anyone who enters the St George in Bloom competition and that will also help to attract pollinating insects.

Bristol zoo gardens is also doing very good work, and there are projects such as Incredible Edible Bristol. In some of Bristol’s public spaces, the flowerbeds do contain flowers, but things like cabbages and kale instead. Apparently we are allowed to help ourselves to them, but I have never dared do so just in case I have got that wrong.

I want to put three points to the Minister. I know he has limited time to reply, but I hope he will try to address them. It will obviously be extremely challenging for local authorities, non-governmental organisations and others to take the national pollinator strategy on and implement it given their work loads and financial constraints, so will he say a little about how he can ensure the visions and aims of the strategy can be achieved and maintained in the long term? The role of the planning authorities was briefly mentioned. It is important that planners and developers consider the needs of pollinators. Thirdly, does DEFRA plan to have a long-term monitoring scheme so we can judge how pollinators respond to the changes introduced under this strategy and so we can see what does and does not work, and perhaps regularly review it so that we do the things that do work?

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to have this opportunity to speak in this important debate. As my inbox attests, it is an extremely important issue for many of my constituents. It is also important to me, as I am the owner of a lovely springer spaniel called Leo. My family adopted him when he was seven months old, and he is now nearly nine.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and his colleagues for securing this debate and for introducing it so well. I also pay tribute to the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their report on dog control and welfare.

As any dog lover would agree, the crux of this matter is that we simply cannot see dogs or kittens as commodities. They are not an asset or a piece of capital from which a producer seeks to extract as much financial gain as possible. They are future members of our families, future best friends for our children and future companions for us when our children flee the nest. They are sentient beings, with similar feelings and reactions to us. We would not stand for our children being mistreated in the way that some domestic animals are at birth, as they are ripped apart from their mother and the nurture that she instinctively provides. We would not stand for that because we know how that kind of trauma affects them later in life, whether it is to their personality, their health or both. We all want to encourage more responsible dog ownership. I cannot think of any responsible dog owner who would be happy in the knowledge that their new puppy or kitten, which they thought had been bought from a reputable breeder or at least from a pet shop that deals exclusively with responsible breeders, had actually had such a traumatic start in life.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that often the people who purchase these animals do not realise the animal’s background or where they have come from. A report by the RSPCA said that breeders in eastern Europe and Ireland were selling so-called handbag dogs—little Chihuahuas that the likes of Paris Hilton carry around in their handbags. The breeders were only charging about £25 each for them, but they were then being sold on for between £800 and £1,500. Obviously, the people who are paying £1,500 for such a dog think they are getting a top-of-the market dog that has been very well looked after, but that is not the case.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Often those dogs go on to have terrible health conditions, which then cost the loving owner a fortune in vets’ fees, as they have to mitigate some of those terrible breeding practices that the poor pup suffered in its early life.

Obviously, the breeding and sale of puppies and other animals provides a living, and in some cases a good living. The vast majority of breeders have chosen that as a way of life because they love animals and love the joy that they can bring to the families to whom they go. Many are very particular about ensuring that their puppies go to a good and loving home. I do not want to see the lives of those breeders made more difficult by any change in the law. None the less, I am sure that they would be the first to agree that we must ensure that the law is strong enough to be able to stamp out the minority of breeders in the country who do not share their high standards of care.

My constituents are particularly concerned when they see puppies for sale in pet shops without their mothers present. I understand that that practice persists in a very small minority of pet shops in the UK—about 2% according to Pet Care Trust. None the less, I agree with my constituents that that practice should be ended completely. It has been pointed out that some councils have successfully eradicated this practice in their areas through their licensing requirements, but, like buying a car, buying a pet involves the kind of purchase that people are prepared to go further afield to make. Indeed, my dog Leo is an Essex boy, and we travelled all the way there to adopt him. Although such actions are welcome, they mean little if all the surrounding councils do not feel able to follow suit. I therefore think it is worth looking at what more can be done at a central Government level to spread best practice across the country.

I do not know what the right balance is in securing regulations that are enforceable and effective but that do not represent an onerous duty on local authorities or other agencies or place unnecessary restrictions on the many good, responsible and caring breeders, but it is clear that we are not striking that balance at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I wish to associate myself with the comments made by hon. Members from all parts of the House, deploring the barbaric treatment of kittens and puppies that are mass-produced in so-called “farms.” Regrettably, there have been many cases in my home county of Carmarthenshire.

This debate, of course, takes place thanks to the 112,000 members of the public who signed an e-petition setting out their concerns. E-petitions were one of the positive reforms introduced in 2011 and offer the public a direct means of engaging with what is discussed in the House. I am glad that we are holding this debate today and hope that Ministers will act on what is said.

As a lover of animals myself, and one who cohabits with a cat, a dog, two rabbits and a fish—not to mention the five horses that my wife owns—I was particularly horrified to learn that puppies and kittens bred in such farms are almost always separated from their mothers too early, are held in appalling conditions and are sold on an unregulated market. Prospective owners are often duped into believing that the mother has been kept with the kittens or puppies, when in fact those selling the animals use fake mothers to pose with the little ones in cages to mask the neglect that those animals have gone through. As a result of the poor conditions in which they are bred, the animals are likely to suffer from a weakened immune system and a shorter lifespan, and to develop behavioural issues that stem from a lack of trust in their owners.

The UK Government’s response to the e-petition to date has been a statement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which claims that the existing laws and regulations contained in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are robust enough to deal with the problem—citing the law that requires dog breeders to obtain licences from the local authority, and stating that it is against the law for “hobby breeders” to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. It is, however, evident that the current system is not working, and that animals are being exposed to needless suffering.

In Wales, animal welfare is devolved and a matter for the National Assembly and the Welsh Government. In August 2013, the Welsh Government launched a consultation that centred on dog breeding legislation, which asked whether changes should be made to dog-to-staff ratios in kennels—specifically, whether one full-time attendant should be required for every 20 adult dogs, or one part-time attendant for every 10 adult dogs.

The proposed draft Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs)(Wales) Regulations 2013 were brought forward under section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sought to repeal the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 in relation to Wales. The regulations, as drafted, would be enforceable by Welsh local authorities. Under the provisions, local authorities would have to be satisfied, prior to granting a licence, that dogs and their puppies would be kept in acceptable conditions. Those seeking to breed dogs would need to show that they would be providing adequate nutrition, bedding and exercise facilities. The regulations also specifically make mention of the welfare of puppies and provide for a socialisation programme, aimed at ensuring that puppies bred in approved premises are able to socialise with other animals and people, so that they do not go on to develop behavioural problems.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that although a lot of the onus of enforcing these regulations and carrying out inspections falls on local authorities, and although trading standards have brought some successful prosecutions, both local authorities and trading standards, especially in my area, are really under pressure? They are really stretched and they do not have the resources to carry out such work. How can we address that?

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is an extremely fair point. Local authorities in Wales are looking at a 4% cut in their budget next year, according to the Welsh Local Government Minister. In Carmarthenshire, my home county, we have a major issue. If we are passing on those added responsibilities, resources need to come to match those responsibilities.

Finally, the regulations stipulate that puppies cannot be sold until they are at least eight weeks old and have been microchipped, as my colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), said. In December 2013, the Welsh Government brought forward draft legislation and laid out their intention to proceed with the proposed staff-to-adult-dog ratio of 1:20. The Minister said that the introduction of regulations was scheduled for February 2014, although I am not sure what progress has been made since the announcement. Indeed, I would welcome any comments from the UK Government Minister as to what, if any, discussions have taken place with representatives from the devolved Administrations on bringing forward changes to regulations concerning the breeding and farming of animals intended as domestic pets.

Evidently, members of the public feel very strongly about this issue, and I empathise with their concerns. Those who signed the e-petition called for the Government to introduce regulations whereby the selling of kittens and puppies was banned unless their mothers were present. Puppy and kitten farming is an abhorrent practice, which must be stopped. I urge both the Welsh and UK Governments to listen to the public and act on their concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are aware of the problem of dual use, but it is absolutely our intention that those who have common land should be eligible for new environmental land management schemes, which we shall publish shortly.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Many are concerned at the Government’s stance in the CAP negotiations—opposition to proposals to cap the amount a single farmer can receive in subsidies, for example. In the interests of transparency, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for all Members to register any CAP-related payments they receive on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Mr Paterson]

I think that that question is one for the House authorities—perhaps the Leader of the House can deal with it later at business questions. I am not frightened of large businesses producing food efficiently. I refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said. We should wake up to the fact that there is not unlimited safe food beyond these shores. There is a huge increase in world demand for food, and we should concentrate on having good, efficient farming that produces food for our population and enhances the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that point was reinforced yesterday by the Prime Minister. Article 18 of the UN universal declaration of human rights seeks to enshrine freedom of religion and the freedom to change one’s religion, whereas the alleged offence of apostasy makes it a hanging offence to change one’s religion. They are clearly incompatible. In international law, fundamental universal UN human rights must prevail.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The case of Meriam Ibrahim has come to particular public attention because it is so shocking in its detail, but of course she is just one of many people across the world who are being persecuted for their religious faith. What outreach work is the Church of England doing with other Christian Churches in the countries where persecution of Christians is a significant issue?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

As at least two debates in this House in recent months have demonstrated, article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights seems to be an orphaned right. The Church of England and other faith groups have been working hard to ensure that the international community and the UN Human Rights Council pay proper regard and respect to article 18.

Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate the Committee on yet another thoughtful and agenda-setting report. I must admit that I was a little surprised to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) in his seat, given that this was listed as a Foreign Office debate, which is why I am here. I hope that does not suggest that Foreign Office Ministers are not interested in environmental sustainability in the overseas territories, and I hope that the Minister reports back to his Foreign Office colleagues on how today’s debate went.

In a debate on the White Paper back in December 2012, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who has responsibility for the overseas territories, said that building stronger links with the OTs should not just be a matter for the FCO; it had to be “a cross-Whitehall effort”—so perhaps that is why the Minister is here. As we have heard, the Committee has noted that, although FCO civil servants are encouraged to visit the overseas territories, DEFRA staff are discouraged from doing so. DEFRA does not have a single staff member dedicated to working with them full time and spends only 0.3% of its biodiversity conservation budget in the territories, so I think discussion is needed between DEFRA Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers about how we can take some of these really important issues forward.

As the report sets out, the total population of the territories combined is just 250,000, but the countries account for some 90% of the biodiversity for which the UK Government have responsibility. There is an amazing range of biodiversity, encompassing vast expanses of ocean, thousands of coral atolls, tropical forests and polar areas. As we have heard, the OTs support unique and sensitive ecosystems and habitats of international importance, and are subject to significant threats. The report highlights how the UK still lacks a basic overview of these environments. The RSPB has set out how that lack of knowledge means that extinctions of species, such as the St Helena olive tree in 2003, which was the last global extinction, continue. The RSPB said that that was largely due to a lack of attention.

The report makes it clear that environmental protection of the territories is the UK’s responsibility, and that the constitutional responsibility of territory Governments for environmental protection of their natural environments does not subcontract

“the UK’s ultimate responsibility under international law.”

In signing the UN convention on biological diversity and other multilateral environmental treaties, the UK Government did so on behalf of the overseas territories. It should now negotiate the extension of the convention to the overseas territories where that has not yet taken place. As these countries

“have no international legal personality or treaty-making capacity”,

only the UK Government can co-ordinate ratification on their behalf. As we have heard, that is absolutely crucial for protecting their threatened environments.

If the UK Government are genuine in their belief that, as the Foreign Secretary said:

“We are stewards of these assets for future generations”,

and, in many respects,

“the Territories are more vulnerable than the UK”,

they need to live up to those responsibilities and take them seriously.

It is absolutely right that the UK puts pressure on the overseas territories to make them more financially transparent and democratically accountable. We know that work is going on on that front, but it is somewhat incongruous that, while the UK Government are prepared to broker an agreement with the territories with financial services industries to join a multilateral convention on enhanced tax transparency, they are not prepared to exercise similar powers to protect biodiversity. I get the impression that environmental issues were very much a side issue at the last joint ministerial council meeting in November, with overwhelming priority given to developing opportunities for trade and investment. Clearly, there is a need for economic development in the territories, but as the report sets out, that development must be sustainable.

The example was given of the British company, Crown Acquisitions, which has received planning permission for residential developments on the three Cayman islands. Two of the three islands have no development plans at all and minimal planning controls. Environmental impact assessments are not a statutory requirement for developments, and as I understand it, the company now owns 200 residential plots on Little Cayman, which is only 10 miles long and one mile wide, with a population of less than 170, a limited road network, limited fresh water and power, and inadequate waste management. It is also home to the largest population of red-footed boobies in the Caribbean, which live and breed in an area designated a wetland of international importance. Given the active role that the FCO is taking in assisting UK companies to develop business opportunities and invest in the overseas territories, it is important that the UK Government also see it as their duty to stop those companies profiting from a lack of environmental safeguards or effective development controls in some of those territories.

May I also take this opportunity to press the Minister about the turtle farm? I know that it has been said that the responsibility lies with the islands and not with the UK Government, but the Minister recently answered a question I asked him about shark finning, for example. He was very prepared to take a public stand condemning that and DEFRA is very prepared to take a stand condemning the ivory trade, yet it does not seem willing to take a stand on the protection of endangered green turtles.

I have heard reports that a few companies may be prospecting around the continental shelves of a few of the isolated islands in the south Pacific and south Atlantic, with a view to possible deep-sea mining. Are the Government aware of any interest in deep-sea mining in the overseas territories, have they had any discussions with companies considering that, and how do they see deep-sea mining working sustainably—or not—in parallel with marine environments?

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) was cut short in his remarks on marine protected areas. I think he knows that we share very similar views on the topic. With regard to Pitcairn, I had the pleasure of meeting two of the islanders—Simon Young and Melva Warren Evans—when they were over in Parliament a while ago. We were shown an absolutely fantastic film demonstrating just how pristine and unexplored much of the marine environment is around the islands. As was said, the islanders unanimously want a marine protected area. That is their decision. It would make Pitcairn the largest fully protected marine reserve in the world and would contribute 2.5% towards achieving the global commitment made under the convention on biological diversity—Aichi target 11, which was mentioned. Will the Minister at least advise us whether there is likely to be a decision on that before the next election? I will not talk more generally about marine protected areas, as my hon. Friends have already done so, but I flag up the calls for marine protected areas around Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, and for better protection around South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands.

Finally, I want to say that the Government are full of warm words—the overseas territories White Paper was full of fine words—but very little action is being taken. The Government need to be more ambitious in their vision for the overseas territories and take seriously their stewardship of these extraordinary natural environments. It is important that we continue to ask more of ourselves on these important issues if, as the Committee argues, we are to maintain the UK’s international reputation as an environmentally responsible nation state. I hope that we see from the Minister’s response today that he is prepared to do that.

Elliott Review and Food Crime

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this important debate. She has been interested in the topic for some time and we have both taken part in several debates on it.

I want to add my voice to those who have welcomed Professor Elliott’s interim report on the integrity of food supply networks and his recommendations for stemming the growing tide of food crime. As we have heard, criminal networks increasingly see the potential for what Professor Elliott describes as

“huge profits and low risks”

in the food industry. The hon. Lady said that it was now more profitable and considerably less risky to be involved in food fraud than in the drugs trade. The National Audit Office reports that cases of food fraud reported by local authorities have increased by two thirds since 2010. Results published by a number of local authorities, including West Yorkshire, Leicester and West Sussex, from a survey of meat products on sale in their areas, show that gross contamination of meat is widespread. Leicester trading standards, for example, found that half of the meat products it sampled contained species of animals not identified on the label, which is in breach of legal requirements for composition and labelling. Some of it was probably deliberate fraud and some was probably cross-contamination due to poor hygiene, but it is an obvious matter of concern.

Huw Watkins, who heads the intelligence hub at the Intellectual Property Office, has documented shocking cases of adulterated goods seized in the UK in recent months, ranging from a 40-foot lorry containing over 17,000 litres of fake vodka to cases of goat’s milk adulterated with cow’s milk, which could be fatal to allergy sufferers. I was struck by Professor Elliott’s account of a meat product supplier, who had been asked by a retailer to produce a gourmet burger for a unit price of under 30p. Even using the cheapest available beef from older cows, the lowest possible unit price for the burger that the supplier could produce was 59p. Professor Elliott concluded that the only way to meet the demands of the retailer would be to switch to beef supplied from premises that were not EU approved. That black-market meat would then be ground with cheap offal, such as heart and brain, and the incorporation of meat emulsion, also known as pink slime or soylent pink, and mechanically separated or recovered meat. The product would then have been marketed as a gourmet burger, targeting the top end of the market at a higher price and at a huge profit margin for the retailer, which would be committing fraud by misrepresentation.

The example highlights a culture that Professor Elliott describes as one of casual dishonesty, which he says needs to change to one where food composition is proved, not assumed. He recommends that if retailers consistently buy below the market price, they should check there are no grounds to suspect the goods are criminal property or they risk being guilty of complicity in a crime. In other words, they should know that if they are getting something that seems too good to be true, it is too good to be true and something dodgy is going on.

In the rest of the time available, I want to concentrate on a few concerns. Answers to written parliamentary questions that I have recently tabled reveal an alarming drop in food testing over the past five years. Food composition testing is down 48%; food labelling and presentation testing is down 53.4%; microbiological analyses are down by 25.3%; and food contamination analyses are down by 24.5%. Professor Elliott has warned that cuts to food testing and inspection could put lives at risk. He has said that they could compromise the safety of the food that people eat to such an extent that “people start to die” and has called for “strong” and “well resourced” regulators.

Andy Foster, from the Trading Standards Institute, told a recent “Dispatches” programme on Channel 4:

“You take money out of sampling, you take money out of inspection, you take the money out of the consumer protection system. You will get increased levels of fraudulent activity…When you have some local authorities—like some in London—operating on one trading standards officer, how on earth can they possibly deal with all their demands from fraudulent activity?”

Cuts to trading standards are expected to result in a fall in the number of officers to below 2,000, compared with 3,000 in 2009, while the number of public analyst labs, where food is tested, has dropped from 15 to 11 in the past three years.

In February, when I asked the Minister at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions about the shocking West Yorkshire test results, which showed that more than a third of food samples were not what they claimed to be or had been mislabelled in some way, he replied that the 30% figure was

“misleading, because the samples looked at were based on intelligence and from areas where there was greater concern in the first place.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 1004.]

I appreciate that that is a factor; it was a risk-based assessment, so areas of concern were being targeted. However, West Yorkshire’s public analyst, Dr Duncan Campbell, believes the authority’s results represent what is going on nationally. Felicity Lawrence of The Guardian, which covered the results of the survey, concluded:

“Because it was looking, West Yorkshire found problems”.

It is clear that routine sampling, as well as that based on intelligence, is vital if cheats are to be caught and food safety standards maintained. Dr Duncan Campbell explains that well:

“Go into a pub and the bottle optics behind the bar will be filled with leading brands of vodka or whisky. If trading standards never check they are what they claim to be, and the publican is having his margins squeezed, there is a huge incentive for him to refill his bottles with cheaper generic spirits from the cash and carry.

That principle holds true across the whole retail and manufacturing sector. If you don’t have routine sampling in each area, you don’t find the cheats, and there is no deterrent to protect the public.”

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that with the fall in the amount of testing and sampling, and price increases affecting both production and the retail margin, 12 months from now things are likely to be worse, not better, unless the trend is reversed?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes. There is a double incentive. One is that people are perhaps more likely to do things that they think they can get away with. The other is that profits are being squeezed and there are limits on the price that people can charge for products and still manage to sell them. That is entirely true.

In his interim report, Professor Elliott called for both risk-based and random testing to protect the consumer. Will the Minister make that FSA policy? The enforcement of standards has become increasingly random as council budgets are slashed. In answers that I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison),about funding for food testing, the Government have insisted they have increased funding through the provision of additional funding from the FSA to local authorities. That has increased to £2.2 million for 2013-14 from £900,000 in 2010-11. That is welcome, but it does not compensate for severe cuts to local authority budgets, which have resulted, for example, in 743 job losses in trading standards at council level between 2009 and 2012. Leicester city council’s head of regulation, Roman Leszczyszyn, said that trading standards officers had been encouraged by central Government to pursue intelligence-led enforcement, rather than random sampling, to

“reduce the burden on business and remove unnecessary inspection”.

I am deeply concerned that the Government’s ideological commitment to deregulation is trumping their responsibility for food safety. As the Elliott review says, consumers should be put first—something that does not seem to be happening under the present Government.

Last week, I raised with the Minister Professor Elliott’s concerns about the potential for budget cuts to affect the integrity of our supply chains, but he replied as if my question was solely about the horsemeat scandal of last year. However, as today’s debate has highlighted, we have moved on from the fraudulent use of horsemeat in beef products to the much wider investigation of food crime and our complex food supply networks. Would the Minister like to have another go at answering my question of 27 March: does he agree with Professor Elliott that budget cutting could reach the point where the safety of the food we eat is compromised to the extent that “people start to die”, or is the Professor just overreacting?

I know that the hon. Member for South Thanet is passionate about the cause of ensuring that people eat better food and do not resort to cheap food. It is a difficult issue. People’s budgets are under pressure. It is one thing to educate them about what is in their food, and to make sure that marketing of food reflects what is in it, and that it is of good quality. However, the cost of living is still an issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is no longer in his place, is mounting an inquiry into the question of how to square people’s inability to afford to pay a great deal for food with the fact that we should not be encouraging them to buy cheap food. That is quite a job. The important point is that no matter how much people pay for their food, they have a right to know what is in it. They should not be given food that is not what they think it is.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure, Dr McCrea, to serve under your stewardship this morning in what has been a good and wide-ranging debate. I will try not to diminish the quality of the contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) not only on securing the debate, but on her introduction to it. She has been a consistent campaigner on this and related issues. Her expertise showed in how she comprehensively went through a range of issues. I will start with some of the comments that she and other colleagues made.

The hon. Lady wisely said that we should have been able to see the problem coming, not least through the disconnect between commodity prices and the retail offer. There were other things that could have been seen, not least the disappearance of horses from Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales. They ended up in north Wales or elsewhere, but they did not emerge somewhere else. Some connectivity of intelligence would have suggested that something was happening. There were also wider European issues. The hon. Lady made the point exceptionally well that we should have been able to see the problem coming, and that is one of the big lessons in the recommendations in the Elliott report.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is also a long-term campaigner on food and related issues. She raised a vital issue that was picked up in the Elliott report. There are worrying reductions in the capacity for testing, which are linked to the capacity for detection, investigation and early intervention. That is not simply about Europol, it is about what is happening down on the ground at the grass roots, in local authorities and at a co-ordinated UK level. It is worrying if that capacity is diminished, and it is not just my hon. Friend who says that—as she said, the Elliott review also says that clearly.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who has great expertise from her constituency background and knowledge, made some good points about the inconsistency in how some meat production is treated at EU and UK level. I strongly agree with her call for definitive action after a series of reports into food fraud and food crime, and an end to the hiatus and vacuum in the FSA chairmanship. That is critical, because if the Elliott report says nothing else about the FSA, it screams out for leadership not only within the Government and internationally, but at the heart of the matter, which includes the FSA. That leadership is needed to drive the issue forward, not least when the full report is produced. Someone—not just the Minister, but the head of the FSA—must take a steer and say how strongly the recommendations will be pushed through.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought a different perspective to the issue, and I thank him for talking about the need for consistent application of what eventually comes out of the Elliott review regardless of national borders. That relates to the big issue of long supply chains. We cannot suddenly make them disappear. There will be long global supply chains—that is the reality we now live with, even with the approach that Tesco and Asda are taking of shortening supply chains and so on. We therefore need commensurate transnational measures to deal with supply chains and to ensure that we can give consumers confidence on not only provenance but safety. A year ago, the issue was primarily provenance; the next one may be food safety. We must ensure that good crime analysis is comprehensively pushed out transnationally. We can do a lot about that.

All hon. Members who spoke referred, in various ways, to squaring the circle of cost, and having safe, affordable, nutritious food, while also having fair reward for producers. Those matters are not unconnected. They hang together coherently, or they should. The hon. Member for South Thanet referred to her consistent theme about the need for education and awareness so that people can do a lot with good food affordably. She is right, but that must be balanced against the reality of, for example, a single parent rushing between a couple of jobs and dealing with child duties. They will look for convenience foods, so our frozen, convenience meat products must be safe, nutritious and affordable—not simply cheap, but affordable. I know that she accepts that, and getting it right is important.

The Elliott review is important, and if we look at the scale of the industry, we see why it is critical to get the matter right. It involves not just consumer confidence but jobs and industry. According to the most recent figures from the Library, the food and drinks industry is worth £188 billion. The food and drink manufacturing industry is the single largest manufacturing sector in the UK, with a turnover of £92 billion and gross value added of £24 billion, accounting for 18% of the total manufacturing sector by turnover. It employs just over 400,000 workers, which is 16% of the overall manufacturing work force in the UK.

The latest figures that I have—I admit that they go back to 2012, so I suspect that they are slightly bigger now—suggest that just in the sectors responsible for the processing, production and preservation of meat, poultry, fish, crustaceans and molluscs, as referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford, there were nearly 3,500 enterprises of various size and scale, with more than £32 billion spent, employing more than 176,000 people. We therefore need to get things right—post-horsemeat and post-Elliott review and its final recommendations—not only for consumer confidence but because if we do not, that is what is at risk. Our deserved reputation for good, safe, well provenanced food was shaken last year. We need to get it right back in kilter for the domestic market, consumers, the industry itself and our export potential.

We know that there has been an impact on consumer confidence over the past year, because although frozen meat and poultry sales grew, those of frozen and processed meat products plummeted by as much as 40% for some sellers immediately after what happened, and there has been a slow recovery since. According to Euromonitor, consumer confidence in frozen and processed meat food is still low. As hon. Members have mentioned, the situation has been a boon for butchers, farm shops and the like, but it has also caused re-engineering towards shorter supply chains by organisations such as Asda and Tesco. I recall, as everybody will, Tesco’s “We get it” advert last year, which came, not coincidentally, at the same time as the National Farmers Union conference saying, “We get it. We will change the way we operate”. However, it was not simply Tesco—that was the biggest organisation to be confronted with the problem, but others have also started re-engineering. There is work to be done, and I keep a close eye on that, but they are starting to change how they operate.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am somewhat baffled about how there can be such long supply chains in the manufacture of food products and yet the price is still so low. It seems common sense that the more travel is involved, and the more countries and the more different elements, the more the price will be bumped up. I suspect that I am putting my hon. Friend on the spot, but I very much welcome the fact that supply chains are being shortened, so that we know where our food is coming from.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I think we have to accept that in international food transactions, some food products do not have a UK market. There are some products created in the UK that UK consumers do not consume. For example, if we look at some of the products that are consumed in other nations from the slaughter of chickens, there is currently no UK market for them. They are exported. Conversely and curiously, many of our farmers are finding at the moment that the premium prices for Welsh lamb, pork and so on are not primarily in the UK, so the market is operating in a way that is turning some of the product flows on their heads. Although I welcome a drive towards shorter, more clearly identifiable food supply chains, there will always be an element of longer supply chains, and that is why we need to deal with the issue in both ways.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I want to clarify that I am not really talking about us exporting our products or importing products, but at the time of the horsemeat scandal, when we were looking, for example, at what was in lasagne, about 11 different countries seemed to be involved. Meat might have started out in Ireland, but then it went to Spain, Romania and so on. Surely lasagne can just be made in one or two countries, rather than having to be sent on a tour of Europe before it gets to us.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point—I am sorry, I did not realise that she was referring to that specific example. She is right; in fact, in some examples, as many as 20 transaction points were in the food cycle, which is astonishing. Meat was hurtling across Europe for different parts of its processing. I suspect that it went beyond Europe as well, because there was an important, interesting sideshow going on. The US had banned the slaughter of horses for meat production, but most people had accepted that all they had done was exported that to South America—and where was it going from there?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One welcome move from some supermarkets and retailers is that the big ones are now following the established practice among others, such as Waitrose, Morrisons and the Co-op, of not only identifying local and UK sourcing—within England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, I have to say, Ireland as well—but being much more specific for consumers. They are saying, “We can tell you where the product comes from and how close it is to market”. That is a welcome innovation.

I turn to the evidence of growth in food fraud and food crime. As hon. Members have mentioned, when the FSA set up the food fraud database in 2007, it received less than 50 reports of food fraud, but by last year it had received more than 1,500. According to the National Audit Office, local authorities reported 1,380 cases of food fraud in 2012, which was up by two thirds since 2010.

Professor Elliott wisely makes the distinction between food fraud and food crime. There have always been elements of food fraud going on; some noticeable ones are currently pending prosecution in different parts of the UK. However, food crime goes beyond the

“few random acts by ‘rogues’”—

they have always been out there operating, unfortunately, and they need to be stamped down on—into what Professor Elliott calls

“an organised activity perpetrated by groups who knowingly set out to deceive and or injure those purchasing a food product.”

It is on a grand scale and it is worrying.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We are in the process of concluding our implementation of the common agricultural policy, and we have made it clear that we will align the upland rate of the single farm payment with the lowland rate. We will shortly make an announcement on the moorland rate, which I know will interest the hon. Gentleman.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Answers to recent questions that I tabled show a massive drop in food testing under this Government: tests on food composition are down by 48%, and those on food labelling and presentation by 53%. Does the Minister share Professor Chris Elliott’s concern that cuts to food testing and inspection could compromise the safety of the food that people eat to such an extent that “people start to die”?

[George Eustice]

I am not sure I share that analysis. Since this crisis erupted more than 45,000 tests of beef products have been reported, and there have been no new positives since the reported incident of horsemeat last year. As I pointed out, we have also introduced unannounced inspections of meat-cutting plants, and there have been almost 1,500 of those since last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Obviously the EU market will remain a very important one for UK producers. We work closely with the industry to identify key markets and prioritise negotiations, based on industry interest, projected value and achievability. Under the export action plan, our aim is to maintain access to existing markets and negotiate to open new priority markets for food and drink products in countries such as China, Russia, Brazil, the USA, Indonesia and India.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Tests in West Yorkshire found that more than a third of food samples were not what they claimed to be or had been mislabelled in some way, with ham on pizzas made with meat emulsion or meat slurry that had been dyed pink, cheese analogue used instead of cheese and additives used in flame retardants used in fruit juice. Does the Minister agree that such reports are incredibly damaging to our food exports and that we need to address the problem by having proper testing of food produced in this country?

[George Eustice]

I understand that the statistic the hon. Lady mentioned—that 30% of the samples were mislabelled—is a little misleading, because the samples looked at were based on intelligence and from areas where there was greater concern in the first place. Nevertheless, we take this very seriously, which is why we set up the review by Professor Chris Elliott. He has published his interim report, and we look forward to his final findings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

As the last debate on this subject in the House demonstrated, there are a number of responsible ways to help people in difficulties to access credit, other than recourse to payday lenders.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Not just church congregations but individual members can use credit unions. Now that the law has been changed, organisations can set up community accounts. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that churches ought to look at investing their own funds in credit unions?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Yes. Indeed, many churches are already doing so. I can send the hon. Lady details of a number of diocesan-led initiatives that are doing exactly that.