Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I certainly think that peatlands are incredibly important. It has been one of my frustrations that we put so much emphasis on forests, and on the UK on planting trees—like a race to how many millions of trees each party can pledge to plant—whereas, as the hon. Member says, the carbon sequestration impact of peatlands is greater. We need to do much more to protect them, including, I would say, banning horticultural peat, which I know she has campaigned long and hard for.

I will come on to the question of climate finance later, but I will say that we are in a world in which public money is under severe constraints. The USA, for example, has pulled out of its commitments under COP. I want to see a lot more done to use public money, and philanthropic money, as a catalyst to leverage in far more private sector funding, including through things such as the voluntary carbon and nature markets, so that we can get that finance into protecting our forests, our peatlands and, indeed, our marine environment, which I will touch on a bit later as well.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is talking about peatlands; she will know that Indonesia had a huge, deep burn of its peatlands in 2019, with 31,000 sq km of land burned. In the UK, when we had a terrible peatland fire on Saddleworth moor in 2018, just the year before, an estimated 4.5 million people suffered from the particulate matter—the smoke that went into their lungs—and the health conditions caused by that. Keeping those peatlands moist, damp and wetted in Indonesia is so important. My hon. Friend rightly talked about the population of Indonesia being so large; it is so concentrated that it can be desperately affected by that health risk.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much agree. We both spent the Easter recess wading through peatlands. I was going to say that we were wading up to our knees; I was wading up to my knees, but for everyone else there the peat came up to about mid-calf on them. I had very short wellies on, too—I was given children’s ones. There was an awful lot of squelching going on. Nevertheless, it was amazing to see the richness of the peatlands. We also took boats along the river. The water there is brown—apparently it is entirely drinkable—because of the peat in the water supply. I very much agree that stopping peatland fires and underground burning are as important as stopping the wildfires that destroy our forests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I absolutely agree. I have just come from an event that Fairtrade is hosting in the Inter-Parliamentary Union room, at which people were talking, among other things, about the forest risk commodities legislation—I will come on to that later, because the Government have announced regulations today—and about the cost to smallholders and indigenous communities of complying with it. Of course, we want to ensure sustainability and stamp out deforestation in the supply chain, but we have to remember that there are small farmers and indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on that.

At Easter, a number of us went to Indonesia—Borneo, in particular—and met communities doing agroforestry projects. We were looking at how we could support them. It was mostly about orangutans, which I will talk about at some length in a moment, but the people matter very much too.

[Barry Gardiner]

This is an essential point. My hon. Friend will remember the words of Pak Ja Martin, who was in charge of the project that we went to see. He said, “You can’t talk conservation to people who are hungry.” Therefore, local indigenous people, who for centuries have protected and conserved their environment, must be involved. That was a key aspect of what we went to look at.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I could not agree more. I really appreciate all the interventions, which are a very good way of getting the debate flowing, but it is quite easy for me to lose my place. I was talking about the impact of mining, logging and urbanisation, and about the fact that forest and peatlands have been damaged by wild fires. I will come on to the marine environment later.

The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to help reverse these problems. In a joint statement in November 2024, our Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia agreed a new strategic partnership, underpinned by people, planet, prosperity and peace. It included a commitment to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, conservation of ocean species, sustainable supply chains and food security.

At COP29 in Baku in 2024, we pledged £239 million to halt and reverse deforestation in forest-rich nations that act as critical carbon sinks, including Indonesia. The measures included £188 million for high-integrity forest carbon markets, £48 million for blended finance for forest programmes to attract private investment and £3 million for the United Nations framework convention on climate change to support communities to benefit from forest restoration.

We have also funded some specific Indonesia programmes, including UK Partnering for Accelerated Climate Transitions, which covers low-carbon transportation and energy efficiency. Phase 5 of a 20-year forestry programme looking at timber governance, legislation and regulation has had £12 million from us. The UK partnered with Jakarta and funded the Nature Transition Support programme for biodiversity protection in key national parks and pioneer carbon and biodiversity credit markets. The Climate and Ocean Adaptation and Sustainable Transition programme is funded by the UK’s Blue Planet fund. I have several more things on my list, but I am slightly worried that I will steal the Minister’s thunder. I suspect that she will tell us a bit about what the UK has done, so I will save them for her. As I say, good things have happened, but I will now focus on the challenges.

I have been fortunate enough to visit Indonesia twice in the last couple of years. In April 2025, as the then Climate Minister, I represented the UK at the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade dialogue meeting in Malaysia. Indonesia had been co-chair of the dialogue with the UK, but was handing over to Malaysia, so my visit took in both countries. The discussion mostly focused on palm oil, as hon. Members would expect, and the theme of the dialogue was smallholders. I think I am right in saying that, in both countries, about 50% of palm oil production comes from smallholders. Although it is easy for the larger agricultural concerns to monitor regulations, comply with the certification and do all the bureaucracy that is involved in that, it is much more difficult for smallholders. As we have said, we need to bear their needs and livelihoods in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was going to wind my hon. Friend up by saying that I have no idea how big Leeds is—slightly bigger than Bristol, I think—but he is right that delay has consequences. I gather that the Government have announced a consultation now, but we do not want that to drag on. We must ensure that it is a genuine consultation, but that it is time-limited and that action follows as swiftly as possible.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does she agree that, as part of that consultation, many of us would like the Government to consider that this should not just be a matter of legality, but of actual deforestation? She will know of cases where other countries have passed similar legislation; in Brazil, its then President changed the law to make sure that the companies that were deforesting were able to comply with our legislation, and therefore to continue the trade. There is a loophole here. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consultation would do well to close it?

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is right. One of my concerns was that Bolsonaro was making legal what should clearly have been illegal. The counter-argument was that there was something slightly colonialist about dictating how a country should decide on what was sustainable for its own purposes, and there were some voices on that side.

As I understand it, the UK will start on the basis of what is illegal in the country from which we are sourcing the products, but the intention will be eventually to align with the EU regulation on deforestation-free products over time, and the ultimate goal is a blanket deforestation-free standard that would legally require products to be produced without any forest loss or land conversion whatever. That is the end goal; the EUDR has run into some problems and its implementation was delayed—it should have been at the end of last year, and now it may be at the end of this year—so the idea is that we move ahead with what we have already drafted under the Environment Act, and then better will follow. The British Retail Consortium today welcomed the announcement, which is another indication that business does want this change.

While regulation will help to prevent further destruction, we also need to mobilise finance to protect standing forests and restore what we have lost. Public funding from donor countries and philanthropy both have an important role but, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, we must look to the private sector if we are to close the forest finance gap. Indonesia is already benefiting from REDD+, or reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, funding, which is a mixture of public and private finance, but we could do much more to scale that up.

Indonesia has a huge amount to offer investors, and I know they are looking to the UK to help them; in fact, just after I was in the country last year, the climate envoy arrived at the embassy to run some workshops on voluntary carbon and nature markets and how Indonesia could work with the UK on those. We are rightly seen as leaders, not least because London is one of the global financial capitals of the world. At COP29, I was proud to launch our six principles for voluntary carbon and nature market integrity, and last year we used London Climate Action Week to launch the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, which we co-chair alongside Kenya and Singapore.

However, I am somewhat concerned by the lack of progress since then. There was a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero consultation that closed nearly a year ago on 10 July. I have been trying to chase that up, and I gather that around 200 responses have been published, but the recommendations have yet to come forward. Maybe that is being saved up for London Climate Action Week; I very much hope it is, because I think the eyes of the world are on us to make this blended finance happen.

There is one issue that I will touch on only briefly, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) will speak on it: the controversial plans for a food estate in West Papua. I have had some reassurances that that will not involve the destruction of healthy forests and that it is part of an important strategy to increase Indonesia’s food security—I can tell by the look on my hon. Friend’s face that that is not the account he has been given. However, as I said, I knew he was coming here to speak about that, and I know I can rely on him to speak about it with great expertise. The other assurance I have had recently is that Indonesia wants to move away from such a high dependence on the palm oil sector, diversify what it grows and increase its food security, but I will leave that to my hon. Friend to cover.

I want to talk instead about orangutans. My second visit to Indonesia was in April this year with the all-party parliamentary group on international conservation and Borneo Orangutan Survival UK. Three Members present today were on that visit, and I think it made a lasting impression on us. We took a very long and slow boat journey into East Kalimantan in the heart of Borneo and trekked through very rich, deep and, as I said, squelchy peatlands to see the work being done to restore primary rainforests. We also met people from the indigenous communities to see sustainable agroforestry in action.

The best part was that we spent a day at a forest school for orangutans, where they teach orphaned orangutans how to survive in the wild. Indonesia is home to three species of orangutans and they are all endangered. They are the most arboreal of all apes, spending around 80% of their lives in the rainforest canopy. Normally, their mothers teach them forest skills and how to survive in that way up to about the age of eight, but when they are orphaned, they go to forest school for about the same length of time. Then they go to university, where they practise semi-independent living. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West and I each had the amazing privilege of releasing an orangutan—his was called Peanuts; mine was called Lanting—into their university island, where I hope they are thriving.

BOS is doing great work, but we need to do more to tackle the underlying reasons why so many orangutans need its help. I have already spoken at length about forest risk commodities and the destruction of habitats, but those are not the only factors. Many orangutans like Peanuts and Lanting have been displaced by development as Indonesia’s population and urbanisation grow. They are also very susceptible to human diseases such as tuberculosis, which they catch when humans start encroaching on their territory. I think all of us who went would agree that the saddest thing we saw at the forest school was the orangutans that could not be released from their cages because they carried diseases—particularly TB. They were clearly really unhappy animals and it was heartbreaking to see them. Under the law in Indonesia, they cannot be euthanised, because they are a protected species. However, there is some hope, because BOS is fundraising to create new habitats. There are going to be about 15 little islands where groups of infected orangutans—one male, a couple of females and the younger ones—will be able to experience freedom together without passing their diseases on to healthy animals. I look forward to seeing that come into play.

A sizeable number of the orangutans that BOS rescues have been trafficked—for example, stolen as babies to be pets or for private zoos. BOS has rescued around 50 from tourist attractions in Thailand. It has been three years since the UK passed the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, which will ban the promotion by UK companies of tourist attractions abroad that involve animal cruelty and exploitation—for example, those where tigers are drugged and declawed, elephants are forced to perform or, as we saw on film in Borneo, orangutans are forced to take part in boxing matches. Yet we are still waiting for the Act to come into force, because the lawyers at DEFRA need to draft regulations. I am told that they are struggling to find the right words to put in the definitions to catch that type of cruelty and exploitation. My next note just says, “Get on with it.” They need to get on with it. There is no excuse for three years’ delay. As a lawyer, I am pretty sure they can find the words to deal with these things, even if it is just where animals are forced to perform unnatural acts or where they are drugged or declawed. They do not have to catch every type of animal abuse and exploitation; it would be a start to bring in regulations that catch at least some of it.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend has been very generous in taking interventions. On the animals that had diseases—she is right, it was an affecting sight that depressed us all; it is great that the islands are being built—is she aware that at a recent lecture, Nadine, who we met in Oxford, confirmed that when orangutans are captured for translocation, they will now be tested for TB? That will enable scientists to study the epidemiology of the disease in the wild population. Of course, if it transpires that TB is already in the wild population, it could be safe to release them back into the wild.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It was good to talk to Nadine on the visit; she was a real source of expertise. I am glad to hear that, and if it is a possible answer to the issue, that is excellent.

I will talk a little about the marine environment. We have quite a lot of debates in this place about oceans and marine issues, so I will not say too much, but they are important to Indonesia. The country covers an area of around 8 million km², only a quarter of which is land. With around 17,000 islands, Indonesia is an ocean state, supporting coral reefs, mangroves and sea grass habitats that are vital for biodiversity and for human livelihoods such as fishing and tourism. It lies at the centre of the coral triangle, which is often called the “Amazon of the seas” because of its exceptional biodiversity, and has over 75% of the world’s coral species and more than a third of global reef fish species.

Indonesia’s marine environment is amazing—I have been diving there, so I can vouch for that—but it is also highly vulnerable. The reefs are under pressure from overfishing, destructive fishing practices such as blast fishing, pollution and overdevelopment. Rising sea temperatures cause coral bleaching, which weakens or kills reefs, while pollution and sedimentation reduce water quality. Indonesia has established hundreds of marine protected areas. Conservation zones reach tens of millions of hectares, and it has ambitious targets to expand them further to safeguard up to 30% of its marine territory by 2045, which would make it one of the largest marine conservation networks in the world.

Indonesia is also investing in marine conservation and restoration, including in coral reef rehabilitation programmes, stricter environmental regulations and innovative schemes such as the coral reef bond, which funds conservation projects based on measurable improvements in reef health. The UK has now passed the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026, and although I understand that a few more steps must be taken before the global ocean treaty is finally ratified, I hope that we will be able to play a full role in January at the ocean COP in New York. The Minister is leading on that, so perhaps she can tell us a bit about it in her reply.

Indonesia is vital to us, and will become ever more so. Its economic success is important to us, as is its environment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and other colleagues have to say.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whom I congratulate on securing the debate.

Here is my perspective. Life on this planet has been going for 4.5 billion years—4,500 million years. Human beings have been on this planet for 6 million years. That means that we have been around for 0.013% of the time that life has existed on this planet. We are cashing in 4.5 billion years of planetary saving bonds and blowing it on bling, and nothing but our own hubris gives us the right to do so. Exponential growth within a finite system leads to collapse, and that is what is happening—collapse. We know it is happening. Only last weekend, as I was in Durham, the IPBES report set out again what we already know: the global rate of species extinction is between 10 to 100 times higher than the average rate over the past 10 million years. We are living in the Anthropocene—the sixth great extinction event. Human activity is actually being compared to the asteroid that obliterated the dinosaurs—except that unlike the asteroid we know what we are doing. We know that 12% of tree species and over 1,300 wild mammal species are threatened by unsustainable logging and hunting, more than 25% of the world’s forests are subject to industrial logging, and 34% of marine wild fish stocks are overfished—but the plunder goes on.

We politicians are strange creatures: we say we want to do the right thing but so often we end up doing the easy thing instead. We spend our lives trying to win, but in this struggle between ourselves and our planet, there is always going to be just one winner: planet Earth will continue in a new form long after we have made it impossible for our own species to live on it. Reversing the trend of biodiversity loss requires urgent, transformative change. That is code for saying that we need to consume less, because at the current rate of consumption, we would need three planets-worth of resources by 2050. That means that we must examine our economy. It is not just about reducing our consumption; it is about changing our economic accounting model in order to account properly for the free goods and services that we are destroying. Pollination services, clean air, the purification of water by forests and the protection of coastal cities by mangroves are all regarded as externalities by classical economics.

Let me now enter into the earlier debate between the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—my hon. Friend on this side—and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whom, certainly in terms of conservation, I am happy to call an hon. Friend on the other side. Our obsession with GDP suggests that the coastal surge that destroyed cities such as New Orleans—under hurricane Katrina—resulted in the growth of GDP owing to the economic activity when all the new levees were built. The disaster that destroyed so many lives and so much wealth is counted in our economic system, GDP, as a positive, but the loss of the tupelo and cypress forest swamp, which had previously—when the trees were not being taken down—reduced the surge swell and protected the city, was not counted as a negative in any economic calculation.

The Dasgupta review, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central referred, set out with great economic force the consequences of what Professor Dasgupta termed “impact inequality”: the imbalance between humanity’s demand and nature’s supply, and the need to reconstruct economics so that nature is an essential part of it and ecosystem services are properly valued. It was disappointing that when the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee to discuss the Dasgupta review, it became clear that she had not read it. Yesterday, when the chair of the Committee on Climate Change appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and was asked about DEFRA’s plan for net zero, it was notable that he said not only that there was no clarity for others, but that there was no implementation that it was possible to judge because the metrics were not there. Just as the Government should implement net zero stress tests for all budgets, so they should implement net nature tests against all expenditure to ensure that alignment with our post-2030 biodiversity framework is maintained.

That brings me to the importance of data. We are extraordinarily blessed in this country to have more than 250 years of amateur scientific data-gathering. We have baselines against which we can say, with real confidence, that 41% of all UK species have declined in the past 52 years, since 1970, but under-employed Church of England vicars and other gentlefolk going back to Georgian England provide us with a database that other countries can only of dream of. May I ask the Minister to ensure that our support for COP15, and the financial assistance that we make available to countries, focus on enabling them to have an accurate dataset of their own natural and biological assets.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will give both ways, but not simultaneously. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend. What he is saying about data is a huge issue for the small island developing states, because there is so much biodiversity, particularly in the territorial waters, and populations of perhaps a few hundred are somehow expected to manage a vast space. I agree with what he said about the importance of supporting them, and our overseas territories, so that they can do that work.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the constant problems, particularly in our overseas territories, which do not have the resources to be able to establish their own datasets, is the gaming between them and the Foreign Office, because technically, through the convention on biological diversity, we are responsible for the biodiversity in those overseas territories.

It is a great tragedy that this palming off of responsibility between the two continues. I know that the Minister is new in post, and I welcome him to his post, but I hope he will have robust discussions with his colleagues in the Foreign Office about this. Perhaps he could whisper something to that effect in Lord Goldsmith’s ear, given that he is Minister of State in both DEFRA and the Foreign Office. This really does need to be sorted out. The overseas territories need that support to get the database.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is right that we need to look at land restoration as one of the key indicators. It is particularly the case in sub-Saharan African countries, which are facing an increasing challenge of desertification from climate change, which they are having to fight against, rather than just looking at the land that is already semi-desert and trying to see how to restore that. It is a huge problem. The NBSAPs must be living documents, which is why they need to be ratcheted up, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, every five years between major COPs.

Let me turn to finance. I pay tribute to Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, who spoke at the beginning of COP26. For my money, she was the most powerful speaker at the whole event. She pointed out to the politicians assembled for the launch of COP26 that the promise we had given was for $100 billion a year to be put into the global planet fund to help the global south to cope with climate change and to take effective mitigation efforts. We have not delivered that, and we are nowhere near delivering it. She pointed out that it was not because we could not afford it, because we had just spent $9 trillion—trillions, not billions—bailing ourselves out over the covid pandemic. The funds are available and they must be made available.

The extent of quantitative easing that the global north has allowed itself since the 2008 global financial crisis has been more than $36 trillion. What is COP15 asking for? It is asking for the same as was promised at COP26: $100 billion a year, rising to $700 billion a year. That is essential. If we are to enable those developing countries in the global south to do exactly what the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was talking about with regard to the restoration of degraded land, and if we are to deal with these problems, we have to be serious. As the human species, we do not have the right not to be.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On the amount of money we need to give to help countries in the global south to cope, those countries are often faced with crippling debt—we had the whole jubilee debt campaign. Belize, for example, is a small island state that is right in the forefront of the impacts of climate change. It has incredible biodiversity that needs protecting, but is crippled by debt repayments. If we do not deal with that side of the equation, there is not an awful lot of point giving such countries money to help them invest in the sort of projects my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that intervention at precisely that moment, because it enables me to talk about green finance, and the importance of involving the private sector and ensuring that critical private finance is coming in. Green bonds and debt-for-biodiversity swaps are innovative and fundamental ways in which we should facilitate countries such as Belize to tackle the environmental problems they face. It cannot be done without money, and it cannot be done simply with public money. In fact, green bonds are now classed as more attractive than ordinary, vanilla bonds, because they tackle not one issue, but two; they mitigate risk on two factors. The secondary market in green bonds has really taken off.

I want to talk about the way in which the financial sector needs to be regulated and guided through the issue. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the way in which our financial sector was incentivising deforestation, particularly in Brazil. He is absolutely correct. We should not simply say, as is the Government’s position, that companies need to declare their climate and sustainability actions in their mandatory annual reporting, and that they should not fund any activity, such as ranching in Brazil, that drives illegal deforestation. That is not good enough. When those stipulations were put in place, countries such as Brazil simply changed the law to make it legal so that they could continue to receive the finance. There must be objectivity about whether something is or is not deforestation.

I am conscious that I should not take up too much more time, but it is critical that COP15 addresses access and benefit sharing. We will not have global agreement and global co-operation on the environment and our failing global biodiversity unless biopiracy by pharmaceutical companies is addressed. These companies must not go into communities—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central referred to this—and say, “We are going to take the genetic sequences of these two trees and use them in our pharmaceutical products, but you will not get any advantages from it.” That is why the UK must be foursquare behind access and benefit sharing at COP15.

An ecosystem has the right to exist, to flourish, to regenerate its vital cycles and to evolve naturally without human disruption. Nature has rights. We often think that rights apply only to us, but trusts and institutions have rights, and those rights are safeguarded by trustees and guardians. That is us. Nobody else is here to argue for nature. We must be the guardians of that trust. We have been on this planet for only 0.13% of the time that biodiversity has existed. We have no right to destroy the world around us.

Horsemeat

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is very much the point I am making. It is so important for people to know what goes into their food, but there is a conspiracy to keep that information from people.

[Barry Gardiner]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have just concluded a consultation on the EU food information for consumers regulation, under which they are asking for a derogation so that they do not have to reveal that information on the label to the public in Britain? Mince, which is not allowed to be sold with 35% and 15% respectively of fat and collagen in it, will not be allowed to be sold on the continent, but it will be sold in Britain under that derogation.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly. I raised that very issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday, and I have to say from his response that it looked as if it was the first he had heard of it; he simply said that we rely on scientific advice, which I think is scandalous.

I am just halfway through my description of the process involved in producing pink slime. The recovered beef material is then processed, heated and treated with gaseous ammonia or citric acid to kill bacteria. It is then finely ground, compressed into pellets, flash frozen and shipped for use as an additive. There was a public outcry over this issue a while ago, and we saw Jamie Oliver appearing on American TV decrying its use. There was a real backlash, and companies such as McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell announced that they would discontinue its use. There was also an outcry about it appearing in meals in the public sector, and promises were made that that would no longer happen. Once consumers knew that there was pink slime in their food, they did not want it and wanted the meat industry to stop producing it.

There is also a substance that has become colloquially known as “white slime” in meat products. It is officially known as “mechanically separated meat” or “mechanically recovered meat”. This is the product most likely to be used in highly processed meat products such as burgers or pies. It is a paste-like product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve to get every last little scrap of meat off the bone. Questions have been raised about its safety and some have argued there should be limits on how much of it should be used in a food product—for example, no more than 20% is allowed in hot dogs. The fact is, however, that consumers do not realise that this is in their hot dogs. Finally, there is advanced meat recovery, which separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving or pressing the meat from the bone—again, typically used in hot dogs.

Let me quote what John Harris said in an excellent article in yesterday’s The Guardian—it may sound a bit of a cliché to keep quoting this newspaper, but it is not particularly fond of vegetarians generally. He said that EU regulations insist that if a product is to be called “meat”, it has to be

“skeletal muscle with naturally included or adherent fat and connective tissue”.

He said that our Food Standards Agency insists that economy beefburgers must contain at least 40% of this product, which must come from cows. That is not very reassuring; I think people expect their beefburgers to have beef in them, not cartilage, fat and connective tissue.

In talking about the relentless search for profits from cheap food, John Harris cited a Financial Times article saying that Findus products came from a factory in Luxembourg, which was supplied with meat by a company in south-west France, which had acquired frozen meat from a Cypriot trader that had subcontracted the order to a trader in the Netherlands—who was then supplied from an abattoir and butcher located in Romania. As John Harris says, how messed up has our food system become? All this is a far cry from the sort of meat that many Members praised during yesterday’s statement on horsemeat. The advisability of buying local meat from a local farm sold by a local butcher was highlighted, where the path from the pasture to the plate is a matter of public record. Indeed, I have heard people saying that they take local sourcing so far that they even know the name of the cow they are consuming.

It is very easy to say that, and in ideal world, people would be looking to buy organically reared locally produced products, but that is very expensive. Yes, it can be said that people should try to cook their own food and source it locally instead of buying ready-made meals, but I am sure many MPs grab a ready meal from Tesco or Marks and Spencer on their way home after a vote. We should not be too judgmental about people who turn to value ranges and ready-made meals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said. If someone has only a couple of pounds left in their purse and there is a £1 lasagne ready meal or an eight-pack of Tesco economy burgers left in the shop, they will buy one of those rather than buying the mince, the sheets of pasta, the flour, the butter, the tomatoes, the herbs and the cheese that they would need to make lasagne from scratch. Many people do not even have the necessary cooking facilities in any case. I have seen single men in my constituency living in bedsits with just a microwave for cooking.