Climate Change and Flooding

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), who is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee.

I will take leadership as my theme today. I am talking about the leadership that has been shown during the negotiations not just by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change but by the whole team that was out there. I was delighted to meet up with Lord Nick Bourne, an old colleague of mine from Swansea institute, and to urge him to show that leadership. The outcome was good, but I am sure that the Secretary of State and her team will agree when I say that it is as nothing unless we now rise to the challenge that it has set up. We are looking at 3.5° to 3.7° based on our current trajectory of global warming. If all the actions within the current package are delivered, we may be able to achieve 2.5°, or even 1.5° if we ratchet up our actions every year or every five years. The scale of this transition is huge; it is enormous. We cannot base it on our current plans, so the leadership that has been shown should be commended. We now need that leadership to turbo-charge what we do both here within the UK and in our international negotiations.

Once again I applaud the leadership that has been shown on the ground in areas of flooding, including in Hawick in Northern Ireland, in Wales, and in Workington, the scenes from which were described in the remarkable and emotional words of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I was in Workington back in 2009, after what we thought was the worst flooding we had ever seen. That came on the back of the 2005 floods, and here we are again. Back in 2009, more than 2,200 properties and 250 farms were affected, 25 bridges were closed, and 40 waste treatment works were closed—again there is that issue of resilience—and here we are again.

In response to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), whom I love dearly, I have to say that he is completely wrong. We are not talking about this one event being down to climate change. It does not matter whether we are talking about the traumatic incidents in Cumbria, Scotland, north Wales, Ireland, Bangladesh, or the Maldives, it is a pattern of climate change that is unarguable and we must deal with it.

In the short time available, I must say to the UK Government that, if we are to make the Paris commitments work and go further, we really need a step change now. We need to go further on the international stage. I strongly urge the Minister and her team to go back and look at what we are doing at an EU level. I suggest that we are not being ambitious enough to meet that 1.5° or 2° target. In terms of this country, the right hon. Lady has admitted that we have a policy vacuum at the moment, specifically in regard to the closure of various schemes. I will not argue the pros and cons of it, but we have a policy vacuum none the less, whether it relates to energy efficiency in homes, the type of clean green energy that we produce, demand reduction, or residential or commercial properties. We are consistently being told by business people and others that there is a policy vacuum in all those areas.

[Neil Parish]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a tidal lagoon in Swansea would be a very good way to produce tidal energy, and that we could use that idea all around the United Kingdom?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My admiration for the hon. Gentleman has gone up hugely, because I was not going to be able to get in that point. He is right. We were a little frustrated by the lack of announcements on the Swansea Bay lagoon and strike prices in the autumn statement. Let us now see a commitment that will take forward not only the Swansea Bay lagoon, but the Cardiff Bay lagoon and all the ones that come after it. One of my recommendations to the Secretary of State would be this: let us use this as an opportunity to create jobs and to be a world leader so that we can export that technology, that know-how and those jobs. It is there for the taking. When Stern warned us about the challenges of climate change, he told us to make the early investment to save money down the line. That is what we must now do.

Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for conducting themselves with real intelligence, insight, clarity on detail and compassion for the many interested parties in a fascinating but sensitive debate. I also thank the all-party group on beef and lamb and the hon. Gentleman, its chairman, for producing a genuinely thoughtful report on meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. Every member of that group—some of them are here today—is a thoughtful and insightful individual. I declare my interest as a member of that all-party group.

I congratulate the APPG on bringing light to this debate in place of heat. Some people have tried to use the subject of halal and kosher meat as a proxy for a generalised attack on Muslim and Jewish communities. The report rejects that dark populism and rightly focuses instead on animal welfare and informed consumer choice. The report also attempts to take an evidence-based approach, which will not be welcomed by some who have firm positions either in opposition to or in support of the methodologies underpinning the production of halal and kosher meat. It is worth saying that the two methodologies differ in their detail.

The report is the right way to advance our understanding and to encourage sound policy making. Although I welcome the report, I do not think it is the end of the matter. This is a notoriously difficult subject not simply because of the religious and cultural sensitivities but because of some of the technical detail and gaps in scientific certainty. The report, however, is a worthy attempt to understand the matter, and it makes some useful recommendations. The religious and cultural sensitivities deserve our full consideration, and they must of course be set against any legitimate, if contested, concerns about animal welfare and the desire for informed consumer choice expressed through labelling. The report addresses all those matters.

The facts are important in this debate, as sometimes the tabloid hyperbole can overtake the reality. Although shechita slaughter prohibits any form of stunning, more than 80% of halal animals are pre-stunned. The Food Standards Agency estimated in 2012 that 3% of cattle, 10% of goats and sheep and 4% of poultry were not pre-stunned as part of halal slaughter—let us get the facts on the record. Religious slaughter has strict oversight by official veterinarians from the Meat Hygiene Service, and there are strict regulations governing meat hygiene and animal welfare and statutory regulations in each food business operator. The official veterinarians can give written or verbal advice on improvements, issue warnings and recommend prosecutions where necessary.

Of course, several organisations have now come to the conclusion that slaughter without pre-stunning compromises animal welfare. Those organisations include the British Veterinary Association—of which I am delighted to be an honorary member—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Humane Slaughter Association and others. They have presented strong evidence to support their case for a ban on such slaughter. But equally, as we have heard, organisations such as Shechita UK contest that evidence and have presented powerful counter-arguments and evidence. Of course, shechita meat could not be produced if there were a requirement for pre-stunning before all slaughter, and there have been some well made points on that today.

The organisations that advocate a complete ban on slaughter without stunning also advocate an alternative way forward if there can be no ban. They propose working with religious communities to enhance the enforcement of existing welfare-at-slaughter legislation where non-stun slaughter takes place; to introduce immediate post-cut stunning; to ensure time and facilities for the official veterinarian to be able adequately to monitor welfare where non-stun slaughter takes place; and to educate consumers.

[Neil Parish]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right. One of the problems with shechita is that the Jewish authorities just will not accept any post-stunning. I can understand the need for an animal to be conscious at the time of cut, but post-stunning would be very useful for large animals.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we need to work on both the religious and cultural differences and methodologies to find a way forward that, as he rightly says, does not stamp on the liberties that come with the absolutely right and long history of not only tolerance but acceptance of those differences within UK society.

Food Contamination

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I welcome the new Minister to his place; we worked well together on the Select Committee and I look forward to him having views entirely consistent with those he had in Committee now he is a Minister. I am partly teasing him, but I look forward to working with him. I enjoyed his friendship on the Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Select Committee, on securing the debate, because it is necessary for us not to forget exactly what happened.

I want to concentrate on the consequences and on the many lessons that we need to learn. For many years, I have been saying that we have not had proper labelling of the origins of processed food, especially meat products, and the contamination has highlighted that hugely. Basically, the product was travelling all across Europe from the Republic of Ireland, Poland and Romania into Luxembourg and France—it was travelling all over the place. The trail—exporting from one country and importing to another—was almost impossible to follow.

As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) highlighted, the value of the processed meat is key. If someone bought a joint of beef and a joint of horse—we cannot do that in this country, but in many European countries they can—they would immediately be able to tell the difference. If we minced them up and put them in a burger, however, I suspect that when we actually looked at it physically, we would not see a great deal of difference. If horse meat is trading at a quarter to a third of the price of beef, it is tempting to the unscrupulous in the food processing industry to substitute one for the other.

Not only the Government but the large retailers should keep a check on the situation. If retailers are buying beef burgers for less than the cost of the beef that should be in them, they should ask how on earth a company can produce that product for that price. That is a lesson for the industry and the big retailers to learn. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire probably shares my view that although the big retailers are necessary, they have used their muscle over the years to drive down prices for primary producers and farmers. They have spent their lives doing it. This time they drove the price down too far, and people came in who said, “Okay, these big retailers want cheap burgers; well, we’ll mix in a bit of horse meat, and it’ll be fine.” That is where questions need to be asked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made the case that the Government need enough public analysts, but retailers also need to employ such people or franchise out the work to somebody else. When I go into a large supermarket, I expect to buy a product that is made of what it says on the label. That is the retailer’s responsibility; the Minister may well make that point later. Yes, it is the Government’s responsibility, but it is also very much the responsibility of the retailer.

I noticed that the Chair made a bit of a face when I said that one could tell the difference between a joint of horse meat and a joint of beef. Ethically, we in this country do not eat horse meat, but it is eaten in many countries across Europe, and it is legal. It is necessary to be able to slaughter horses for meat. There are so many horses in this country, some with huge welfare problems, that if we could not slaughter them, the welfare problems would be even larger. I would much rather those horses be slaughtered humanely in this country than taken on vast journeys across the continent in poor conditions to be slaughtered. We must remember that slaughtering and trading horse meat are not crimes in themselves.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good and cogent point. We must guard not only against inhumane transport but against the possibility that imports of horse meat from places that previously discarded the slaughter of horses, such as the United States—they are now slaughtered in other countries instead—might find their way back to us through Poland or the Czech Republic, with added ingredients such as phenylbutazone, known as bute.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It leads me neatly on to the fact that, as I said, horse meat must be traceable. It is not only a case of what is imported into this country. In America, there are many racehorses and other sorts of horse that are more likely to have been treated with all sorts of drugs throughout their lives. We must be careful of that.

We in this country must also be careful to ensure that we know where the horses that we slaughter have come from. At the moment, under the passport system, many horses have one, two or several passports, one of which is clean and says that the horse has not been injected with anything, and another one of which may have been used when the horse has been injected with various drugs throughout its life. We need a better passport system and a central database, so that we know where horses come from, to ensure that when they are slaughtered, we know that they are healthy. Although we may not eat the meat, it will be exported for someone else to eat. It is essential.

I believe that some good things will come out of this situation. As other Members have said, it would have been terrible if the contamination had led to a public health issue, but fortunately it did not. One or two horses slaughtered were found to have levels of phenylbutazone, but not enough to hurt anybody eating the meat. We must learn to ensure that horse meat is traceable in future, not because it should be mixed with beef and sold fraudulently but because the meat should be safe.

The other great lesson to be learned concerns the traceability of our own meat. People like farm-assured schemes, such as the red tractor promoted by the National Farmers Union and many others. As soon as horsegate—the problem with horse meat in beef burgers—occurred, people wanted meat from this country. I do not wish to be churlish, but Tesco did not decide to source all its meat from the British Isles out of the goodness of its heart; it decided that that was a good way to make consumers buy at Tesco.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention and the focus that she and the Select Committee have put on not only the FSA, but the overall issue of food governance and the integrity and coherence of it. We have repeatedly made it clear from the early days when its responsibilities were split up that we had concerns about what might happen. Her Committee’s report and the report of the National Audit Office have made it clear that those concerns did not cause the crisis, but contributed to a delayed reaction, which I will come to in a moment. There is confusion at national, local and intergovernmental level. I shall not call for a review today. I shall echo her call for action and for the Government to introduce proposals to change the structure of food governance.

Tesco, the UK’s market-leading supermarket, notably and admirably fessed up to its responsibilities. It said, “We get it.” It took out full-page advertisements coinciding—coincidentally, I am sure—with the NFU conference in February, and it is seeking to re-engineer its supply chains and get closer to primary producers. It has a way to go, as has already been mentioned. I visited Tesco’s headquarters and we went through this in detail. Although it has a journey to make, I do not doubt its sincerity and ambition to do so. It is consumer-focused; there is a reason why it is doing this. Other large retailers have already developed shorter supply chains or other methods of ensuring the provenance of their food.

In the early stages, many took a different approach and frankly said, “Not us, guvnor.” They pointed to abroad or to smaller suppliers, international criminals, other third parties and, frankly, anybody but themselves. It is clear that the criminal activities of some have damaged public confidence in the whole supply chain. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee spoke for many in the country, when it reported that it could only

“conclude that British consumers have been cynically and systematically duped in pursuit of profit by elements within the food industry.”

Whether that was criminality, negligence, complicity or failure of due diligence through the whole supply chain, from major processors and supermarkets down to the very small players, all were to varying degrees at fault in causing the failures, and all have responsibility in rectifying them and restoring trust and confidence.

I welcome the letter that I received yesterday from ABP, a dominant player in the UK and European beef processing market, which tells me that it supplies more than 20 countries and has a network of over 15,000 farmers. In the letter, the company acknowledges—it cannot deny—the presence of horsemeat in some of its frozen beef products over the past year, but states:

“It was certainly not an activity sanctioned by ABP in any way at any level”.

It goes on to make it clear that the company is not subject to any ongoing investigations.

In some ways, it is unfair to pick out ABP, because it was not alone in a complex and vulnerable supply chain that put beef adulterated with horsemeat and, for good measure, with trace elements—thank goodness, only trace elements—of phenylbutazone or bute into our homes, hospitals, schools and canteens, as well as, through food distribution companies, into Royal Ascot and the royal household. When it comes to food adulteration, we are genuinely—and right royally—all in it together.

As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, those who came out well from the crisis were the butchers, local abattoirs, and those in local food networks and short supply chains, whose customers could prove where their food came from and what it was. The upside of the crisis is that it has reignited a major debate about our relationship with the food we eat, which I hope will lead to changes in how we produce and value our food.

Much of the modern supply chain is long, complex and international, with multiple handling and processing operations and multiple opportunities for adulteration. The lesson for those in wider supply chains, especially the major and dominant supermarkets, processors and distributors, is that no one can escape responsibility for the mess we got ourselves into or avoid responsibility for restoring trust in those supply chains. It is not good enough to say, “It wasn’t us, guvnor,” because as far as the consumer is concerned, it was.

I want to turn to the issues of food governance identified by the Select Committee’s two reports and highlighted in a timely report by the National Audit Office, on 10 October, entitled, “Food safety and authenticity in the processed meat supply chain”.

I tell the Minister that the Government must clearly now take responsibility: they are also in the dock and must fess up. They must answer criticisms of their role in failing to ensure effective governance of the food manufacturing sector. Although I commend the industry for working alongside UK, Irish and EU agencies to strengthen the testing and tracking of food products in response to the horsemeat crisis, I cannot yet commend the UK Government, whose response to the crisis was hampered by structural problems of their own making. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which the Minister was a member, put that succinctly in its first report, stating that

“the current contamination crisis has caught the FSA and Government flat-footed and unable to respond effectively within structures designed primarily to respond to threats to human health.”

The National Audit Office’s No. 1 key finding was:

“A split since 2010 in the responsibilities for food policy in England has led to confusion among stakeholders and no obvious benefit to those implementing controls.”

That split in responsibilities is, of course, the one that was devised and implemented in 2010 not by the Minister, who is only just in post, but by his coalition Government. They are the architect of their own misfortune, but more importantly, of what others have described as the flat-footed response to the food adulteration scandal. The food sector and the consumer deserve better. It is not the fault of the FSA, but of the Government who split its responsibilities.

[Neil Parish]

I accept, to some degree, the hon. Gentleman’s assertions about changes to the FSA, but there had been no testing of horsemeat for 10 years or more, and the situation arose only when we started testing horsemeat. What matters is not the structure, but the fact that we were just not testing. All through his watch and that of his Government, nobody was testing horsemeat. That is why I think that he is being a little disingenuous, if I may say so.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I utterly refute the idea of my being disingenuous, because I am citing the words, evidence and recommendations of the Select Committee and National Audit Office reports. The criticisms are not mine, although I entirely agree with them, because we said the same from the outset, after the FSA was split up. I am not being disingenuous, but frank: I am saying what I have consistently said month after month, and year after year, and that is what our position has been.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am hammering the Government because governance is central to how we resolve the situation. We can ask the industry to do many things—we have done so, and the industry is getting on with them—and agencies are helping it, but unless we resolve the fundamental issue of how to bring together the entirety of the food industry coherently and not split it between Departments, we will be back here again. That is what his Committee concluded.

The Government response to the concerns is worryingly complacent. The document states, on page 7:

“The Government is concerned that the Committee may have misunderstood the status and constitution of the FSA”,

and it then defends the FSA in the following three paragraphs. If the Select Committee has misunderstood the FSA, so have the National Audit Office and many other well-informed, critical friends of the food industry who want the Government to look more fundamentally at the FSA and to review the cack-handed way in which its responsibilities were diced and sliced in 2010.

The Government should adopt the Tesco approach: fess up to this aspect of their responsibility, learn the lessons that they must learn and deal properly with the role of the FSA and food governance, instead of tinkering at the edges. It takes a big man or woman to accept that they were wrong, but I hope that the new Minister, in whom I have confidence, will be able to do so.

Let me ask the Minister some questions that stem from the Select Committee and National Audit Office reports. Coming new into the post, does he accept, from what he has looked at, that the Government’s and the FSA’s early response to the crisis was flat-footed and slow, as has been said, partly thanks to the Government’s machinery of government changes? Does he accept that the Government’s decision to split the FSA roles directly led to confusion and a lack of clarity about responsibilities at the outset of the crisis, both between Whitehall Departments and agencies and between local government enforcement and the FSA?

Does the Minister accept that, as highlighted by the National Audit Office, confusion at local and national level still exists today, despite the Government’s well-meaning reforms, which signifies that deeper reforms or the unwinding of some of the 2010 reforms might be needed? Does he accept that, despite strong Government rebuttals back in February and March, the introduction of the banned substance phenylbutazone or bute into the food chain via horsemeat, albeit in trace elements, might have turned the situation from a food provenance issue into a food safety crisis? If he does not accept that, I ask him to read the National Audit Office report.

How does the Minister respond to criticisms that intelligence sharing, especially between food authorities and Departments in Ireland and the UK, has been weakened by the coalition’s machinery of government changes? Does he believe that reducing food testing by local authorities by a quarter, linked to cuts in funding and budgetary stresses, contributed to a lack of deeper intelligence from local sources that might have picked up the risks earlier? To turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton in his intervention, one of the things that the National Audit Office picked up on was the lack of deep intelligence down on the ground. Although it applauds a risk-based approach, deep intelligence would have flagged up these sorts of incidents at an early stage.

How does the Minister respond to fears that the closure of four public control laboratories in the past three years combined with a reduction in public analysts from 40 to 29 since 2010 raises the potential risk that we will be unable to respond to any future incident of this type?

My final question echoes a concern of the Select Committee and of the wider public. Where are the prosecutions, the fines, the penalties, the custodial sentences, and the naming and shaming of the guilty parties? I realise that the Minister will not be able to go into detail about the ongoing investigations, but we need to know whether we are talking about one or two bad apples or a fundamental problem with a rotten barrel. The Select Committee asks whether this is

“a complex network of traders and processors acting fraudulently to deceive consumers and retailers.”

The longer we wait for conclusions to the investigations, the more the feeling grows that people are escaping justice and that the networks that caused this criminality are also delaying that justice. We cannot expect the Minister to comment in detail on investigations that are under way, but I hope that he can at least inform us of some progress.

At the outset, I reiterated the justified criticism by the Select Committee of the flat-footed response by the FSA and the Government. Its call for stronger powers for the FSA were re-emphasised by the head of the National Audit Office only last week. He stated:

“The January 2013 horsemeat incident has revealed a gap between what citizens expect of the controls over the authenticity of their food, and the effectiveness of those controls on reality. The division of responsibilities for food safety and authenticity has created confusion.”

In conclusion, while Labour rightly demands—I know the Minister will demand this as well—that the food sector step up and take responsibility for its failures and commends the sector for the work it has done so far in recent months, it also demands the same response from our Government. The sins of the father do not have to be visited on the son. The new Under-Secretary of State can acknowledge that the 2010 FSA machinery of government changes were wrong-headed, that they played a contributory factor in retarding the early response to the crisis, that they are a risk factor, as the NAO says, in any future large-scale food adulteration or contamination episodes, and that he should now step up and act for the good of consumers, the food sector and farmers and for his own peace of mind. Last week, the head of the National Audit Office said:

“The Government needs to remove this confusion, and improve its understanding of potential food fraud and how intelligence is brought together and shared.”

I look forward to the Under-Secretary of State doing just that, beginning with his response. I wish him well in taking forward the Government’s action on this matter.

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend refers to the amount of permanent pasture in Wales. Much of the land may well be too steep to be ploughed, and from an environmental point of view, we would not want to plough it. I do not wish to over-labour this point, but if we are not going to graze livestock on that pasture, what are we actually going to do to manage that land successfully? So livestock farming is not only important from an aesthetic point of view; it produces great meat and it does a great service for the landscape. So I very much agree with him. Parts of the west country and the north of England likewise have much permanent pasture.

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

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to something that he might find interesting, which is the reintroduction of the little-known Welsh White beef cattle up on the Plynlimon hills with the Wildlife Trusts? The reason that those cattle have been reintroduced in those areas, which are vital for holding carbon emissions in peat bogs, is that they trample the right sort of way—better than sheep—in that environment and they eat the right sort of vegetation to keep the biodiversity right as well. So the Welsh White cattle are doing a good job up there.

[Neil Parish]

The shadow Minister raises an interesting issue about not only carbon sequestration but the management of grassland, but not only Welsh White cattle are important in that regard; there is an argument that sheep do not do the same job on certain pasture land as suckler cows and beef cattle do. That is perhaps the subject for a debate for another time, but it is relevant to the fact that, if we are to have good-quality grassland, we need the right type of stock to graze it.

The inquiry found that no current methodology exists to include this factor in an assessment of carbon footprint, despite the fact the loss of hedgerows and pasture land, for example, would evidently impact on the amount of carbon removed from the air. Of course, more carbon would also be emitted if that pasture land were to be destroyed.

Grazing livestock, particularly on uplands, makes a valuable contribution to biodiversity and the preservation of ecosystems. For example, hedgerows provide wonderful habitats for many species that are vital for the diversity of fauna and flora. As numerous witnesses pointed out, it is important to bear that in mind when considering the overall environmental impact of agriculture. Quantifying the carbon value of biodiversity is incredibly difficult and is not something that life-cycle analysis takes into account. The evidence suggests that it will be a major challenge to find an agreed way of quantifying this benefit in the short or medium term. This exposes the weaknesses of simply looking at carbon footprint as a measure of environmental impact, and we urge the Minister to consider this point.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to throw you by standing so late. I had not intended to speak.

I welcome the amendment from the other place and the consideration given to the Bill and the great input from both Houses. It has undoubtedly benefited from it. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I, too, truly wish that we had also availed ourselves of the opportunity to debate the Agricultural Wages Board, on which we have had no vote or debate in the Chamber. In effect, it has today been abolished by an unelected Chamber. While welcoming the amendment and the thorough scrutiny given to the Bill now before us, I think that the House should reflect on earlier business, when we effectively bypassed this House entirely. It is a sad day for our democracy.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I rise to support other Members who have spoken, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who has supported the Bill throughout and did a great job as Minister. I also echo what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about the Bill, although I do not necessarily welcome his comments about the Agricultural Wages Board—but I will not go into that debate.

I congratulate the Minister on listening throughout this whole process, including in Committee, in order to improve the Bill. I also thank the shadow Minister for his co-operation. The Committee and the House have worked extremely well to bring forward this Bill.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 1st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Select Committee, for securing the debate.

First, I want to say that I am probably a very sad case, because I spent 10 years in the European Parliament, and all that time was spent on the agriculture committee, which I chaired from January 2007 to June 2009. I am actually waiting for the men in white coats to come and get me; I am sure they will, before too long. The only thing that gives me some recompense is the knowledge that I will probably not be the only one who is taken away. It is a good idea to debate greening the common agricultural policy. Like the Chair of the Committee, I want to start with some history—how we have come to the place we are in—and the issue of the mythical level playing field that farmers always seek, but that often seems further and further away.

We not only do not have a level playing field across the 27 member states of the European Union, but do not have a level playing field in the United Kingdom, because we have three different agricultural policies. The policy in England is to spread payments across the land and is not so historically based on the number of cattle and sheep kept, whereas in Wales and Scotland payments are made entirely on the basis of historical payments made to farmers between 2000 and 2001-02. There is no doubt but that we must look again at some of the systems of payment, because it is ridiculous to base an agricultural policy from 2014-15 to 2020 on payments made to farmers in 2001-02.

Another issue, which is probably more European, is that Estonia receives €70 per hectare and Greece €500 per hectare, so there will have to be a little bit of levelling of those payments. When in the European Parliament, I was not always admired by the French and Germans when I said, “In 2004, when the new member states came in, they were not equal, but by the time we get to 2014-15 and later, they ought to be much more equal.” Those payments will have to be levelled, like it or not, across the EU. The one good thing for British farmers is that we are somewhere in the middle of the payment table, between Estonia and Greece, so should not be affected too badly by some sort of levelling. If there is to be any form of common policy, the level of payment across Europe needs to be considered.

The CAP was started in 1962 by five member states to produce food after the war, and it was successful in producing food until the 1980s, when there was a lot of food in the world and Europe was subsidising it. When there was too much food in Europe, we put it on the developing world’s markets, destroying their markets. Something had to be done about that. We were subsiding Greek tobacco, for instance. One can argue about whether it is right or wrong to subsidise food and food production, but to use good taxpayers’ money to subsidise tobacco takes a little bit of working out, especially when one third of the tobacco grown in Greece was burnt in heaps on the ground, one third was reasonable quality and the other third was dumped on developing-world markets, leading to Zimbabwe and other countries having trouble with this dodgy tobacco.

We have to face up to the fact that it is no good producing food for the sake of it. The idea of CAP reforms was to move towards an environmental, land-based payment. That is being done to some degree. It is also useful from a world trade point of view, because payments are put into the so-called green box and are not directly linked to production, and so can technically be made to farmers without distorting the international market for food. That also means that we are not directly subsidising the number of cattle or the number of hectares—in real money, acres—of corn, and so on, to produce more food.

We have rightly moved in that direction, but as we move into 2012-13 and onwards, we should recognise that we are living in a different world. The Labour Government, slightly belatedly, worked out that there was a need for food and food production. I attended a Morrisons breakfast the other morning. We were talking about the affordability of food. There is no doubt—I do not level the charge at Morrisons in particular—that certain big buyers over the years have looked around the world to buy reasonably cheap food. However, now there are not vast amounts of cheap food to be had out in the world. China was eating 500,000 tonnes of beef 40 years ago, but is now eating 5 million tonnes of beef. The United Kingdom produced 1 million tonnes, but China is now eating five times the amount of beef that we produce. The beef produced in Brazil, Argentina and other countries that produce lots of beef is not necessarily finding its way on to our markets; it is finding its way into China. Therefore, food and raw material prices are higher.

Although the CAP must be greened, it also has to reflect the fact that we need food that is produced at an economic price that our consumers can afford. I am a farmer—I declare an interest—and farmers would like the prices that they are paid for food to be higher. Of course, consumers are having to pay more. We should ensure that enough of the money that the consumer pays the retailer for his or her food gets back into the producer’s—the farmer’s—pocket. Although that is not necessarily part of CAP greening, it is relevant to agriculture and farmers’ incomes.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about food prices. Does he agree that, although people always say that farmers receive subsidies, as if those are going straight into their back pocket, the truth is that in a lot of cases farm subsidies in recent decades have subsidised a cheap-food policy? Household expenditure on food has been falling for many decades, and that has reversed only recently.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The payments coming to farmers have encouraged them to produce food—in many ways quite rightly—and helped to keep the price of food down for the consumer. It is only now, in recent times, with 7 billion people and rising in the world, that more food has been needed, and its price is going up.

In recent times, the prices of fertiliser, fuel and all those inputs that are needed to produce food have doubled. Therefore, the key is to consider an agricultural policy that is not only green, but looks to ensure that food that can be produced sustainably, is supported. This point has been made many times before, but if we look at our upland and hill farming, why are our hills so green and pleasant? Because they are farmed, and because there is stock on those hills. We need to consider that in respect of the CAP, because again—I am probably a little bit more controversial than some in this regard—it is no good just making a general payment across all farmers in future; we must look at the way that those payments are made.

Does the East Anglian farmer on the fens, who can produce 4 or 5 tonnes of wheat per hectare, necessarily need the same payment as the farmer struggling on the hills? Is it not time that we found a way for the farmer in East Anglia, who could carry on producing good wheat, to trade his environmental payments with somebody farming on the hills? In Britain there is not a shortage of land used for conservation and agri-environment schemes; nearly two thirds of the land is in one scheme or another.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I attended the same breakfast as the hon. Gentleman; it was a good discussion. On the important point that he is making, is there a case for the Minister engaging in that? In respect of high levels of CAP payment, particularly to the large agri-industrialist arable farmers towards the top end, there may be a case to be made for ensuring that the additional money from taxpayers is used for increased innovation, research and development, and more targeted and accurate farming, so that the productivity, not just production levels, on such farms is massively increased as a result of using taxpayers’ money.

[Neil Parish]

The shadow Minister is exactly right, and he leads me down a path towards making a point on which not all will agree with me, which is that the one thing that is being denied to European and British farmers is biotechnology and science. No other industry in this country is hampered by not being able to use the best science. A blight-resistant potato used for starch production is in existence. Eventually, we will have a blight-resistant potato fit for human consumption; will we then deny ourselves the use of it? Many in the House are better historians than me, but was it not potato blight that caused the potato famine in Ireland? Solving the problem of having to spray potatoes 20 times a year—probably more this year, because of the terrible weather conditions—would be a great bonus. Similarly, as always promised, we might soon have nitrogen-enhancing wheats and oilseed rapes. Will Europe deny itself those, too?

As a Government, we need to be a little more proactive in discussing biotechnology. It is not for the Monsantos and Syngentas to promote it, but perhaps for our universities and others, so that we can tell people about the possible green bonus from crops that need to be sprayed less and that use less artificial fertiliser—all part of science and technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Among progressive reformers, there has long been a focus on delivering a smaller, greener CAP with a more competitive and productive farming sector, both in the UK and across the EU. Does the Minister agree that yesterday’s vote in Parliament on the question of seeking a real-terms reduction in the next multi-annual financial framework actively assists the Government in pursuing those aims? If so, perhaps he can explain why Ministers were whipped to oppose the motion. Surely yesterday we provided a clear assist to the Government, in strengthening their hand in negotiations on the overall budget, and ultimately in respect of bold CAP reform. We should not forget, with regard to greening and all other matters, that part of this long-advocated reform is intended to reduce the barriers of protectionism, not put more up. It is intended to liberalise trade, which I am sure is supported on both sides of the House.

As well as the need to increase the competitiveness and productivity of UK farming, there is a need to level the playing field across the EU. Let us not forget the need to reduce the trade barriers that disadvantage the poorest farmers in the developing world. We often talk about food security in domestic terms only, but it is also an issue for international trade and developing nations. We urgently need to support growth in agricultural production, especially in the developing world, to feed a rising and poor population.

Let me again commend the forensic work of the EFRA Committee, and then ask the Minister several specific questions on the greening elements of the CAP. First, on a consensual note, we are glad to see the Government continuing with Labour’s focus on a greener CAP, with a greater proportion spent on public goods. We note as well the Government’s commitment

“to a very significant reduction of direct support under Pillar 1 …and a CAP that moves away from market-distorting subsidies.”

We are also glad that the Government are focused on simplification. However, we share the EFRA Committee’s concerns that elements of the proposals, as currently understood, will indeed add to the complexity and the bureaucracy of delivering public goods, including environmental benefits.

The Government must continue to argue in the EU for flexibility for the UK to devise and implement greening measures, to build on what has been referred to in this debate as the great success of the past couple of decades—it is 25 years since we first introduced agri-environment schemes in the UK—and to further those environmental gains. We do not want to destroy our progress or duplicate, overcomplicate or add bureaucracy. One of the things that have not been emphasised as much as they should have been today is the fact that the EU needs to go further. Resting on our laurels, however comfortable, is not an option. Ambitious green reforms need an acknowledgement from Government and from farming leaders that there is more still to do.

I note the Government’s response to the Committee’s concerns, expressed in recommendation 8, about gold-plating greening, in which they restate their high level of ambition for greening across the EU. It is right that we should be ambitious about greening in the UK. Does the Minister agree that, despite all our progress in this area, we need to do more? We need to ensure that there is a level playing field, and that farmers in other nations are stepping up to the green mark, and not finding easy access to indirect payments that support production, thereby disadvantaging UK farmers who are doing the right thing.

The Commission’s impact assessment estimates a 15% increase in administrative burdens linked to direct payments. I hope that the Minister can tell us that he will not be returning to the UK at the end of the negotiations with additional costs and burdens for farmers. What can he tell us of his hopes to achieve simplification and lower costs, alongside the green reforms and public benefits? He understands the concerns about the crop diversification proposals, which, in the UK, could have negative consequences, whereas crop rotation could improve soil and water quality, and help climate change mitigation.

There needs to be flexibility in the ecological focus area proposals to reflect the diversity of UK farming. Perhaps we could use our imagination and modify further the proposal. One suggestion, which is already in play for the Minister, would assist farmers and the environment, and it ties in with ideas proposed by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. It reduces the 7% devoted to EFA to 5% for farmers who are willing to work together to collaborate on projects such as wildlife corridors, and to co-ordinate on a spatial and regional basis to develop those things that help us with climate change adaptation. I have met with large-scale farmers, both out in the fields and here at Westminster, who are already working effectively together on environmental measures, and such an approach, I suspect, would appeal directly to them.

The permanent pasture proposals are in danger of failing to deliver the environmental benefits that they profess to seek.

[Neil Parish]

Not only is there a problem with permanent grass payments, but if we are not careful, farmers will plough up in advance grassland that they would not otherwise have ploughed up if it had not been for this ridiculous measure coming from the Commission.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. That is one of the many unintended consequences of devising a central system, which is why it is vital that we have the right flexibilities in place, so that we can sometimes work around this. We will support the Minister in any way that we can on this matter. I remember, at the 11th hour of a three-day CAP meeting, when we had come up with a final list of proposals, a great chap—I will not say what region he came from, to avoid the risk of embarrassing somebody—who had been involved in the negotiations from the fisheries side came up to me and said, “I cannot say this publicly, but well done, Minister. That is the best possible deal we could have had. I am now going to go away and see how we can work around it.” What we do not want is that sort of outcome. We do not want to come up with a complex list of things that people plan to work around. We would rather see the matter simplified. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I mentioned the permanent pasture proposals. There is a world of difference between valuable permanent pasture that is not ploughed over regularly, which is home to semi-natural vegetation and great biodiversity, and pasture that is periodically cultivated and seeded. How does the Minister intend to negotiate the maximum public good from that proposal?

On exemptions, how does the Minister guard against the fear of double payments and maximise taxpayer benefit? Will he give us more details on the ways the Government will improve the competitiveness and productivity of UK farming while promoting further progress in greening and the achievement of wider public good? What specific measures are the Government working on now, regardless of CAP reform, that will allow both aims to be achieved simultaneously? We do not want the green food project, which has been quite well received, going the same way as the green deal in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which has over-promised, is forecast to underachieve and is fundamentally flawed. The green food project needs to produce benefits and to bring together all the strands. I am sure that the Minister will be able to stand up and assure us that that is the case.

The Government have had some criticism from the EFRA Committee and others for the late introduction of proposals for a points system that would aid flexibility of the Commission’s proposals on a member state basis. I welcome the proposals, but wonder whether playing this card so late has diminished the chances of success in negotiations. May I also ask the Minister how, in promoting the laudable aim of achieving member state flexibility, we can guard against the use of such flexibility by some member states to dilute their greening imperatives? Does not that risk mean that the Commission will strictly have to constrain any flexibility, and what impact will that have on the Government’s ability to deliver for farmers in the UK while trying to guard against the dangers of flexibility among other EU nations? I notice that the Minister is chuckling, but he knows what I am talking about.

In short, flexibility at member state level is not just desirable but essential, but it cannot be allowed, in other nations, to add to the very real cost for UK farmers and consumers. It cannot be allowed to become a euphemism for an abdication of environmental responsibility.

The Minister has a lot on his plate, but if he tires, I am more than willing to step in and pick up where I left off. That would of course require this Government to step aside, so it may not be an option for the moment. Meanwhile, I genuinely wish him well in continuing negotiations on greening, and on all other aspects of CAP reform. Labour will support where we can, and we will challenge where we should, to achieve the outcome that is good for farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment—a smaller, greener CAP, and a more competitive and productive farming sector. I am talking about a one-nation approach to CAP reform where the many, not the few, gain.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have very competitive agriculture, and our country can compete well. As we move on with agriculture, we will have to decide where to put what public support we have. There is an argument for some support in upland and difficult-to-farm areas, not only for agricultural production but in relation to the landscape; that is essential. We have to look at where we can create competitive agriculture.

That brings me on to regulation. I praise the Minister for bringing in Richard Macdonald to look at the regulation and to try to remove it from agriculture, so that the industry can be more competitive. However, although the Minister is busy removing regulation, the European Commission is busy applying more, even though the commissioners talk about wanting to get rid of regulation. All the reform will do is add more complication. We have talked about the 7% set-aside, the three or four crops and all the rubbish coming out of the Commission; we need to oppose that, and I know that the Minister intends to.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I make one point in defence of regulation, which is that there is good and bad regulation. There is over-regulation and over-complexity, but an area where the farming community has worked well—although we still need to do more—is on the water framework directive. When it comes to our rivers, the quality of the natural environment—something to which the Select Committee and its Chair must have turned their attention—has improved more than we could have imagined 10 years ago. There is good regulation as well as bad. We need to fear the bad, praise the good, and get on with delivering for this country.

[Neil Parish]

The shadow Minister is right that there is good regulation, but he must also admit that there is far too much regulation. It is not that regulation is good or bad, but that there is too much of it. The coalition Government are looking through regulation to weed out the unnecessary and keep the necessary. Over the years, we have built regulation on regulation; that has been the problem. Take farm inspections and other requirements, many of which we must comply with because of European regulation. We often have many different people on farms to inspect, so we are trying to bring in one inspectorate and not have as much duplication.

We ought to move towards a strong market in agriculture and agricultural products, which is why, as we can all agree, the groceries code adjudicator is so important. That may not be a European or CAP issue, but it is very much about ensuring that agriculture can compete in the market and get a fair deal from the marketplace. The crux of my argument is that if we are to wean farmers off subsidies over the years, we have to enable them to compete in that strong market.

Agriculture is important in itself—it is a huge part of the economy—but there are also 500,000 jobs in the food processing industry, and much of the food being processed comes from this country, as it should. Again, I am not exactly on the subject of the CAP, but I urge the Minister to look at how we procure food, and to ensure that all the food that we eat in this place—and everywhere else, including in Departments and in Westminster generally—is from this country. I assure the Chamber that in France people would not be eating British beef, so the last thing that we want to do here is eat French beef. That, however, is a particular pet subject of mine, so the Minister might not necessarily want to comment.

In my constituency, there is a lot of grassland and livestock, both sheep and cattle, including dairy cattle. Much of the livestock is fed on grass, a lot of which is on permanent grassland, but some is on semi-permanent grassland. What I fear most about Commission proposals is that we will see agricultural grassland ploughed up unnecessarily, because of worry about the reforms. The Minister is reassuring farmers and trying to obtain the best reassurances possible from the European Commission, because such a development would be almost criminal. We need to deal with it quickly, to ensure that the Commission does not drive agriculture in the wrong direction.

In the future, I want agriculture to stand much more on its own two feet. That has to be. Public support for agriculture should not distort trade between member states or with those in other parts of the world. We must not forget that one of the reasons for reforming the CAP has always been that previous policies promoted high production levels in Europe, and those products were then dumped on the open market, destroying much of the agriculture in developing countries. We have at least moved away from that, and we do not want to move back in that direction.

I wish the Minister well in his negotiations with the rest of the European Union. As a Government and as a country, we must seek greater independence when it comes to how we develop our agricultural policy. The European Union must recognise that as it has grown, and will probably grow further, it must have much more flexibility when it comes to agriculture, because one size will not fit all, especially as the EU grows bigger and bigger.

Welfare of Laying Hens Directive

Debate between Neil Parish and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I am sure the Minister will cover this matter in his summing up, because it relates to legal advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, one can get two or three lawyers in a room and have two or three opinions. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on legality.

I still maintain that we must look at the market; otherwise we will be left with inferior eggs produced under lower welfare standards. From a food point of view, there is probably nothing wrong with the eggs, but they are not compliant. We must ensure that they are driven down in price, so that it is uneconomic for farms to produce them across Europe, and in the end that becomes a matter of the market. If we can drive those prices down, so that those eggs are only worth half a grade A egg, it will not take too long. Farmers may be many things but they usually work out the law of economics, and they will soon find that it is uneconomic to produce those eggs, especially with the high cereal prices at the moment. That must be our main goal. I am happy to slate supermarkets when they do not get it right, but they have got it right in this instance.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution to the debate. Assuming that the Minister will not say that he has found alternative legal advice and that we can have a unilateral ban, does the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) agree that it is right to have a live updated rolling register positively identifying those supermarkets that comply with the Minister’s request and, by implication, identifying those that do not? The only way to do this through a market as opposed to a legal mechanism is to name and shame, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). Let us recognise the good producers and processors and vilify those who do not maintain the highest standards of animal welfare and British food production.

[Neil Parish]

I could not agree more with the shadow Minister; it is a case of name and shame, and we need to know where the eggs have come from. I have looked at where all the beef, lamb and so on in supermarkets comes from. It would be good to discover not only the method by which the eggs have been produced, but where they have come from. I believe that the British public are more and more interested in where their food comes from and are keen that it is produced not only under higher welfare standards, but in this country. It would be a double-edged sword: we would look at not only non-compliant eggs, but where they were produced. That could be very good.