Environment and Climate Change

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall rush what I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It may well help if we understand what we mean by “state of emergency”. Section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 states that an emergency is

“an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom”.

It then lists those different events. I contend that we are in a state of emergency, and we should respond accordingly.

My main point is that we are here today because of Extinction Rebellion. People came to London—many of them from Stroud; some say that it was born out of Stroud—and they danced, sang, made speeches, got arrested, disrupted and stuck themselves to things, including my party leader’s fence. It is important to understand that the protests were about bringing home to us what we should be doing—and what we are doing today—which is declaring a state of emergency, so that we genuinely do something about climate change.

We cannot park this until 2050. We need to do things now, over the next 10 years. We need to halve our carbon emissions over that time, to stand any chance of reaching our target by 2050. We have to stop fracking. We have to stop airport expansion. We have to end fossil fuel subsidies. One thing we have not talked a lot about today is waste disposal. Waste cannot be disposed of by a massive expansion of incineration, because that will add to our emissions. I hope we will get the message and do radical things, and then the people who came here and got arrested will have done it for a purpose.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may not be aware, but the Defence Secretary has just been sacked. Have you had any indication that the Prime Minister will be coming here to speak?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No, I have not, and we need to get on with the debate. I call Daniel Zeichner.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: Seventh Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2016-17, Feeding the nation: labour constraints, HC 1009.]

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin proceedings, I invite any Member who so wishes to remove their jacket, and their tie as well, if they wish. It is certainly very hot in here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To be fair to everyone, Mr Gapes, is there a time limit that we all have to observe?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

I am not imposing a time limit, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman kept his remarks relatively brief.

[Jim Shannon]

The deadline is 4 pm, so we will work towards that.

I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for introducing the debate. I wish him well in his quest to be re-elected as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Without disrespect to any other hon. Member who runs for it, I have no doubt that no one else would fit the job so well and perform it with such ability. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I have already given him my commitment. I wholeheartedly support him in underlining the importance of seasonal agricultural workers to our agri-food industry.

I spoke on this subject at length in this Chamber in November. Some Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak for too long today, since the Chair has asked us not to. However, the topic bears highlighting once again because of the urgency of the situation, which other right hon. and hon. Members have referred to. The agri-food industry is important not only in my constituency, but to every one of us across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

My constituency has a very strong agri-food sector. Our employers include Mash Direct and Willowbrook Foods, which have about 60% and 40% European labour, respectively. There is a very clear need for a system that works. I can say without fear of contradiction that Strangford is not only a beautiful constituency, but one that provides a lot of cereals, vegetables, beef, lamb and poultry. Agriculture is a very important part of our psyche in my constituency.

I hark back to the labour shortage in 2008, during which horticulture businesses lost an average of £140,000, as crops were left unpicked in the fields and retailers were left to try to fill their shelves with imported produce. There is no way we can go back to those hard, problematic times, which I know the Minister will have been aware of. The industry contributes some £3 billion to the UK economy and employs about 37,000 people on a permanent basis. The loss of workers and of the ability to work the land would have a massive effect on the local economy—I can vouch for that, as can other hon. Members present—as well as the UK-wide economy. The time is past due to stabilise the industry.

There is no question of Brexit not taking place. There are people who continuously throw up obstacles, negativity and problems, but let us look at it positively. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) outlined clearly the positivity that we need. Within this debate, we all have some thoughts to put to the Minister, and I know he will respond to them very positively. It is imperative that we take steps now to ensure that the worker scheme is open to all—Europeans and non-Europeans alike—who have a skill that they wish to use to fill a space. We have such gaps, undoubtedly; the figures indicate that.

I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is the sister union of the National Farmers Union, and as a landowner. The NFU and the UFU do a marvellous job on behalf of all farmers, but they also have some very good insurance premiums, which is one reason for our membership over the years. The NFU’s 2015 end-of-season labour survey has shown that, for the first time since the seasonal agricultural workers scheme closed, growers are starting to struggle to source an adequate supply of seasonal workers to meet their needs. Some 29% of respondents stated that they experienced problems in 2015, while 66% predicted that the situation will worsen by 2018. That is the crux of the problem: 2018 is six months away, so this is no longer a long-term outlook, but an impending crisis that demands action as a matter of urgency.

I have every faith that the Government—particularly the Minister, whom I know personally from our involvement with fishing and other farming issues—will respond with the message we need to hear. I ask him to give us, either in his reply or, if he cannot get to it today, in a letter to interested Members, an outline of how the shortfall can be met. I also underline the need to address the issue that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) raised about fishermen, although I know that it is not the subject of this debate.

Since the referendum, labour providers have reported a marked drop-off in interest from EU workers in seasonal work. That was demonstrated by the results of the NFU labour providers survey, in which 47% of labour providers said they were unable to meet the demands of the sectors they were supplying.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. The NFU says that the industry currently uses about 80,000 seasonal workers. That figure is expected to rise to 95,000 by 2021. Brexit will bring opportunities, and we need seasonal workers for that. In an industry that is worth some £108 billion to the nation’s economy, there is a need for more opportunities and stability for those who wish to help where help is greatly needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. Two Members are standing and I need to begin the winding-up speeches in about five minutes. If you are both extremely brief, you will both get in. I call Bill Wiggin.

Household Food Insecurity

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson]

Mr Gapes, I may have the same problem with my hair falling out.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Let’s not go there.

[David Simpson]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there needs to be some process whereby when supermarkets reject certain foods, such as vegetables, because they are not the right shape, size or whatever, they are put on the shelves at a reduced price rather than put into anaerobic digesters. I know that some supermarkets are doing that, but more could be done.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for my late arrival, Mr Havard—I was chairing the Select Committee on Transport—and I thank you for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Members who secured the debate and the 115,000 people who signed the e-petition, which has brought this debate to the fore.

There are differences of view on this topic, but I believe that everybody speaks about it with sincerity, and that concerns about animal welfare are at the forefront. I ask that the concerns of the Jewish community be considered when looking at this whole issue, and that some thought be given to shechita, the Jewish method of slaughter, in relation to the genuine and legitimate concerns raised by petitioners, which have led to today’s debate. First, I hope that we can all reject the term “ritual slaughter”, which is often used in relation to both Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter. That is an unpleasant, pejorative term with very unpleasant connotations. It is not helpful for such a term to be used.

I stress that Judaism’s key concern is with the animal’s welfare, in life as well as in death. Shechita, the Jewish method of slaughter, is extremely complex. It has rules governing which animals people are permitted to eat, what condition they must be in before that is allowed, and how they are killed and subsequently dealt with, and it is performed by a trained person whose licence is annually renewed. The incision is made by a regularly inspected sharp instrument at the structure at the back of the neck, and at that point, blood supply and the ability to feel pain cease, consciousness is immediately lost, and rapid death follows. In effect, cutting and stunning happen almost simultaneously. It is important to spell those things out, because it is vital that when slaughter of a permitted animal occurs it is done in the kindest, most pain-free way possible.

What is not permitted under Jewish laws is mechanical stunning. We are not just talking about stunning; we are talking about mechanical stunning. Many people believe that mechanical stunning is essentially superior to any other kind of stunning as regards the alleviation of pain, but there is no scientific unanimity on that point. In a recent contribution in the other place, the noble Lord Winston went into some detail on those points, and I do not intend to repeat that here.

It is important to look at what happens in practice. Mis-stunning takes place on a significant scale. The Food Standards Authority has admitted that its numbers do not constitute a full record, and that it is likely that a greatly reduced number of animals have been recorded as having been subjected to mis-stunning. The 2004 report from the European Food Safety Authority on the welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods shows that failure rates for mechanical stunning in cattle may be more than 6.6% and could rise to 31% for non-penetrative bolt stunning and electric stunning. There is a significant level of mis-stunning. Anecdotal reports from DEFRA show a similar picture.

It is also important to remember the video produced by Animal Aid after secret filming in three slaughterhouses in 2009, which showed pigs, sheep and calves inadequately stunned by electrocution, and horrific scenes in those slaughterhouses of animals trying to flee and ewes watching their young being killed.

In debating this issue, it is important that we look at not only the theory but the facts. It is also important that there is proper monitoring of what takes place in all slaughterhouses, whatever the methods of slaughter, and that CCTV is used where it can be effective in showing what is actually happening.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have a large number of constituents who are concerned about animal welfare. I also have a large number of constituents who are concerned that this debate and this petition highlight animal welfare issues for the Muslim and Jewish communities that are not being highlighted more widely. My hon. Friend referred to the Animal Aid videos and filming, but some of the terrible practices they show were in places that have nothing to do with shechita or halal. They were producing meat in the normal, run-of-the-mill way that we do in this country. Is there therefore not a danger that we are focusing the debate on the wrong issue? We should be concerned about all animals and their welfare. If people do not like animals being hurt in any way, presumably they will become vegans. I am afraid that I am not prepared to do that, but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

The debate has quite rightly focused on animal welfare. I have to say that those who believe in methods associated with religious slaughter are equally concerned with animal welfare. I am not Jewish, but, representing Finchley and Golders Green, I have taken a great deal of time to understand the religious traditions behind religious slaughter. Any rabbi or imam will say that the welfare of the animal is paramount. If the animal is stressed or in any way hurt or damaged, it cannot be slaughtered. It is also important to remember the long and proud tradition we have of protecting religious freedoms. I do not believe that the two are incompatible.

We are here once more, having debated the same issues in November. I apologise, but I want to repeat some points that I have made previously. I recognise that the debate has been prompted by 116,000 people signing a petition calling for non-stun slaughter to be banned, which I believe was started last April. However, 10 days ago, a counter-petition was started, which now has 124,000 signatures. My point is that the public are completely divided. There is not a common view.

Before we go on to the key animal welfare issues, I will touch on something that is a bit like the elephant in the room. A number of Members have alluded to the fact that our religious communities, whether the Muslim community or the Haredi community in Hackney, the Jewish community that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and I share in London, or the largest Jewish population in the UK, represented by a colleague from slightly further away, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and our constituents, are concerned about the motives behind some of the debate—not all of it, but some of it.

I believe that the vast majority of people raising this issue are concerned with animal welfare, but that for some it is a flag of convenience. For instance, when Animal Aid aired the video on 3 February of the appalling behaviour of slaughtermen in a halal abattoir, there was quite rightly an outcry, but a week later, when a video was aired showing the same behaviour in a mainstream abattoir, there was not a peep. It is an interesting juxtaposition of people’s responses: for halal, there is outcry, but for non-halal, silence.

I have also had e-mails in the past saying:

“I don’t want my meat touched by a dirty man in a beard”

or

“I don’t want Muslim meat”—

whatever Muslim meat is. I have bought meat in halal shops, in kosher shops and in Sainsbury’s, and frankly I cannot tell the difference, so I am still trying to get my head around how Muslim meat or kosher meat is meant to be so different that people do not want it because it is blessed or is in some way religious meat. Sadly, it shows that perhaps ignorance, racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism lurk behind some of the respectable arguments.

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. I will add my voice to his. Constituents in Ilford have written to me in exactly those terms this week, saying that there is a rising Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I have had almost identical words from Jewish constituents and from Muslim constituents. It is not just in his part of London but in east London, which has large Jewish and Muslim communities that go back many decades—indeed, the Jewish community goes back centuries.

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Religious communities feel that they are under threat and that they are being made to feel unwelcome. However, I should put the issue in context: some, but not all, and certainly not the majority, are using animal welfare as a flag of convenience. That is why we must ensure that we anchor our arguments in animal welfare.

In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice)—I took members of Shechita UK to see him when he was a Minister—has given this issue a huge amount of thought, not only because of his farming background, but because of his former ministerial position. I do not always share his views, but they come from a very valid point of view, and I will seek advice on the point he raised about post cut stunning, because it is a fair one and it needs to be explored—I am not a Talmudic scholar, although I sometimes feel I am rapidly becoming one. I am sure someone will have an answer.

Before I looked at this issue, I thought I would go to see these things for myself, and I am surprised to find that a number of colleagues have also been to an abattoir. I went to see what goes on, and I have to say it is not a pleasant experience. Anyone who goes to an abattoir either comes back firmly a vegan or simply has to deal with the fact that there is no such thing as a good death for a cow. I certainly do not have the experience of my right hon. Friend or the experts. I saw these things from a layman’s point of view, like my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington).

I have seen the shochetim operate, and I have seen the bolt through the head, and, to put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a warm, cuddly abattoir. The cow or the lamb is being slaughtered: they either get a quick slice across the neck or they get a bolt fired at pressure through their skull—there is no nice way of dressing it up. However, from what I witnessed, I simply could not see the difference between the two methods. If colleagues get the opportunity to see animals being slaughtered, they should do so—it is gruesome, but they will be better informed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said the training of non-religious slaughtermen is rigorous, but it is not as rigorous as that for the shochetim. The shochetim go through examinations, and they have at least three years’ training before they can use the surgical blade. Furthermore—this sounds slightly frivolous—if the shochet is involved in a row while driving to the abattoir, he is not allowed to practise. Not only must the animal be calm, centred and unharmed, but the shochetim must be peaceful and calm as well. A great deal of time and effort are put into ensuring that the process is as humane as possible.

The point about labelling is a fair one, but labelling meat as stunned or non-stunned is simplistic. If we are going to talk about animal welfare, we have to say, “This was stunned”, “This was gassed”, “This was electrified” and “This was a bolt through the head. Oh, by the way, we had to use three bolts before we got it right.” If people want to inform the public about animal welfare, they can do so. If we label meat only kosher or halal, stunned or non-stunned, the danger is that the issue becomes religion, not animal welfare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is not in his place, said the scientific evidence showed that non-stunned animals suffered more pain, but that contradicts last November’s report from his all-party parliamentary group for beef and lamb, which said the evidence regarding the pain felt following a bolt through the head or following religious slaughter was inconclusive.

I have two final comments. First, 1% of animals in the food chain are non-stunned, but we seem to obsess about that 1%, rather than about the poor practices that have been illustrated in the slaughter of the other 99% of animals. Secondly, the all-party group report said:

“it is to the benefit and pride of the United Kingdom that religious freedoms allow communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious rites.”

That has been the consistent view of this House, and I say once again that we should leave it alone.

Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for the report and for securing the debate. I read the report and was pleasantly surprised, because it was not what I was expecting. It is balanced, although I take issue with several points in it.

Before I took a view on religious slaughter, I thought I would go and see for myself. I am not sure how many hon. Members have visited a slaughterhouse, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) and I ventured out to Witney, of all places, so that we could see for ourselves. I have to say that from the cows’ point of view, there is no such thing as a good death. From what I saw as a layman—I am not an expert—of both types of slaughter, the work of the shochetim in the religious slaughter appeared to be more humane than a bolt through the head. Let us not dance around the niceties—we are talking about a bolt fired at pressure through the centre of a cow’s skull. As hon. Members have already said, all forms of slaughter are unpleasant. We must remember that one is not nice and fluffy while another is cruel.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In that sense, would it not be more honest for the organisations that campaign against religious slaughter to campaign as well for all of us to become vegans?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The campaign against religious slaughter is remarkably narrow. If someone is against slaughter, they should be against all slaughter, because neither method is humane from the point of view of the cow, lamb or chicken.

Before we saw the slaughter, I spent some time learning who does the work of the slaughter. The shochetim are highly trained and have to train for many years. From some reports of religious slaughter, one might think that a shochet was a knife-wielding maniac who had wandered in off the street to slit the throats of cows. Shochetim have to undertake years of training and sit exams to prove that they are of a high calibre. Not only are they highly trained, but they are not allowed to operate unless they are at peace and centred. If they have had a car accident or a row with their partner on their way in, or if they are out of sorts that day, they are simply not allowed to practise. A great deal of time and thought is put into ensuring not only that the animal is calm and uninjured, but that the person who uses the blade is equally calm and unperturbed. The process is calm on both sides—for the animal that is being slaughtered and the person who undertakes the slaughtering.

From what I saw, the person who operates a bolt gun undertakes far less training than the shochet who uses a blade. It is almost the case that a person could apply to a slaughterhouse, and within days and with minimal training they could be operating a bolt gun on a cow. I reiterate that the use of the bolt is not humane, and we need to bear that important factor in mind when we compare the two types of slaughter. As the report says, the evidence is inconclusive about the pain experienced by an animal in the stunning involved in religious slaughter compared with stunning by a bolt through the head.

It is important that we use the term “religious slaughter”. The word “rite” is used too glibly, and we are not talking about a rite. Religious slaughter is not like dancing around the maypole; it is not something that we did in the past and from which we can now move on. It is an integral part of being Jewish or Muslim. It is not an option. If someone wants to practise their faith as a Jew or a Muslim, they have to keep kosher or halal. It is not something that they can choose to do on a Monday but choose not to do on a Tuesday. Religious slaughter is not a rite; it is an integral part of the faith.

Perhaps we should simply label meat. I am not fundamentally opposed to labelling, but why does the labelling have to say “stunned” or “not stunned”? In my view, that is an emotional response, not a factual one. It is discriminatory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) has said, to pick out one or two factors. If we are going to label meat, it is important for the consumer to know whether a piece of meat was stunned or not stunned, gassed or electrified, drowned, trapped or clubbed—or indeed whether two, three or four attempts were required with a bolt through the brain before the animal was killed. If we are going to label, let us label honestly and not try to mislead the public.

I think that the report was a good one, and I fundamentally agree with the statement in the conclusion on page 16 that

“it is to the benefit and pride of the United Kingdom that religious freedoms allow communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious rites.”

I prefer to use the word “beliefs”. In my view, the Government and the House should leave the matter there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency during the floods, I am fully aware of the importance of the issue to her constituents, but it is a complex issue. We are trying to find a long-term solution, and to sort out the conundrum of affordability, comprehensiveness, and not imposing a long-term burden on the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the ABI for the constructive manner in which it has engaged in the regular meetings and discussions that have taken place. We are not quite there yet, but I hope to be able to come to the House soon to announce a resolution of the problems.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. Has the Secretary of State seen a report, published this week, which suggests that rather than there being a once-in-a-thousand years chance of the Thames barrier being overwhelmed by rising sea levels, the statistic could be once in a hundred years or even once in 10 years? What are the implications of that for insurance costs in London?

[Mr Paterson]

We have begun preliminary investigations of the prospects of long-term flooding. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a possibility of major construction projects which may help.