Food Prices and Food Poverty

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

It is a tragedy that both breakfast clubs and after-school clubs are under threat. The chef Richard Corrigan did a film for Sky called “Richard Corrigan on Hunger” in which a lady who runs clubs that are provided for by a charitable provider, Magic Breakfasts, talks about children being admitted to hospital in the school holidays for malnutrition—that comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) about the challenge that school holidays pose for families’ food bills—and scurvy appearing in children of primary school age, which I find deeply shocking.

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

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. Does she accept that some of the problem is hidden, because really good, well-meaning staff at schools are finding ways of feeding children during the day? That is hiding some of the scale of the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Listening to the Secretary of State’s final comments, I thought for a moment that I had stumbled into some sort of parallel universe, because I did not recognise any of her claims about what the Government are doing. She talked about the freeze in council tax. First, some of the families we are talking about are so poor that they do not pay council tax. Secondly, in Stoke-on-Trent, as in other areas, the council has been so hammered by the cuts in support from national Government to local government that it cannot accept the bribe of a 2% freeze and will have to make increases to try to get back some of the money that has been ripped away from it.

I welcome this debate because it provides the other side of the “heat or eat” coin. We recently discussed in this House the situation whereby people have to make the choice between heating their home and having food to eat. Sadly, many people do not have that choice because they cannot afford to heat their homes or to eat properly. Many families cannot afford to put proper food in their stomachs, let alone heat their homes.

The problem is going to get worse. To be fair to the Secretary of State, she touched on this area, to a small extent. Back in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, we had cheap oil and we encouraged farmers, not only in this country but globally, to turn that oil into food by using machinery—whether milking pumps, tractors or heated greenhouses—to produce more food. The UK imports a huge amount of food—even things that we grow well in this country, such as tomatoes. We seem to have a fascination with buying imported tomatoes even during our tomato season. On imported foodstuffs, we bring into this country a large amount of soy to feed our cattle because of the ever-increasing demand for more milk production. As a result, oil prices are rising and will continue to rise further. As the years go by, the built-in link between the price of oil and the price of food means that the food prices that we have been used to will continue to increase as the price of oil goes up.

We need to wean our farmers off oil. Back in the ’70s, companies decided to produce ever-better strains of seeds. That was linked to the oil industry, because in order to grow those better strains, the farmers needed fertilisers linked to oil. As the weeks, months and years stretch out ahead of us, if we cannot reduce the constant link with oil, we will face an inexorable increase in the cost of food. We need to act now, and the Government need to act now, to start to break that cycle.

Food banks such as that at St Clare’s, Meir Park, in my constituency are doing fantastic work and helping the vulnerable in our society, and they have started only in the past year. In the 13 years of the Labour Government, for which the Secretary of State tried to berate us, they were not needed. I would like to see a country in which there were no food banks, of course—everybody would—but while we have the need for them, we must have them.

[Julie Hilling]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Trussell Trust estimates that 60,000 people got food from food banks last year, and that 100,000 will this year? It estimates that by 2015, half a million people will depend on them.

[Robert Flello]

Absolutely, my hon. Friend is correct: that is the scale of the problem we face. By 2014-15 half a million people will be looking to food banks, so how many people will by 2020, and how many by 2025, if action is not taken soon?

People do not want to go to food banks. They do not think on a Saturday afternoon, “Oh, I know, let’s pop to the food bank.” They do it because they have no other choice. They are people with pride and self-esteem, but they think, “Well, hang on, it’s that or starve.” What a contradiction it is that at the same time we are throwing away 7.2 million tonnes of food every year. It is unbelievable that we are wasting food on such a level. It is appalling, and a national disgrace.

Why is that happening? The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rallied to the defence of the supermarket industry. I will make further points about that industry in a moment, but when it has food promotions such as two for one or three for one, it causes problems for families at the poorest end of the scale, who do not have a freezer and cannot store so much food. However, most of the problem comes from people such as—dare I say it?—us in the House. Mea culpa: at the end of Christmas and its excesses, we look at our own fridge or freezer and see that it is still full of food that was not needed. That food ends up going in the bin, at the same time as people—[Interruption.] Well, actually, I do not throw food away, but there are people who do.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

You don’t look as though you throw it away.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is quite right. However, let us not lose track of the serious point.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to hard-pressed families in his constituency whether he is in favour of supermarkets and retailers offering buy one get one free offers, or against? I am sure they would be very interested to know.

[Robert Flello]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I would like the goods on the shelves to be at a fair price so that families can afford to buy one of something and do not have to go for a two-for-one offer to get the best value. I know that he is perhaps still an unpaid spokesperson for a supermarket.

There is a problem with the desire for perfect food, too. Our farmers are having to waste a lot of food because it does not meet some of the supermarkets’ requirements for perfect food.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Flello]

I will not, because I have less than two minutes to go. If there is time at the end of my speech I will allow the hon. Lady to intervene.

My final point is about the groceries code adjudicator. We need somebody who holds the supermarkets to account, because whether we are talking about the past two years, the previous 13 years—as the Secretary of State tries to shift the blame on to our side—or the past 20, 25 or 30 years, the supermarkets have been making money left, right and centre, hand over fist, but at the same time our farmers have told us that they are struggling. The number of farmers now is a fraction of what it was 20 or 30 years ago, and customers and consumers—our constituents—are suffering. We need the adjudicator. If the Secretary of State has a problem with the need for an adjudicator, the answer is quite simple: if the adjudicator is appointed and does not have any work to do, perhaps the post will have been a success because the supermarkets have realised that the game is up.

This debate is not about those of us who are in the comfortable position of being able to go out and buy what we want in the supermarket. It is about the poorest in our society, who may not have freezers and fridges, and cannot buy in bulk, or buy food when it is on offer. They are the ones who work and live from week to week—sometimes from day to day. The House and the Secretary of State need to provide a positive steer, to ensure that the most vulnerable families are looked after, helped and supported by all the machinery of government.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I want to say a few words, following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has said and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who might join us later but is unable to be here at the moment. He has engaged with the Minister, as I have, and I thank the Minister for his engagement with colleagues on this matter, which is much appreciated.

I have always thought that the decision to create the Youth Justice Board was a good one, a view vindicated by its reputation and record. It has done a good job. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) made the point, which I agree with, that it has clearly helped bring down offending and reoffending rates among young people and produced more successful ways of dealing with youth offending, both strategically at a national level and at the level of youth offending teams, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred. I have a few questions for the Minister. My honest position is that I am nervous about the proposal, because I do not want to lose a good thing, but I know that the Minister sees that it has many good elements and I hope that he can reassure us.

We know from a parliamentary answer that there have been 70 responses to the consultation, but we have not heard what the balance is between those who support the Government and those who oppose them. We do know that many of the key voices—the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth quoted some of them—to whom we should listen think that the Youth Justice Board is a good thing and ought to stay. If chief police officers and the Magistrates Association want the arrangement to stay, we should be very careful before proceeding down a road that changes it. Will the Minister share with us slightly more explicitly the answers to the consultation?

I would be grateful if the Minister responded to my right hon. Friend and put it on the record. It is imperative that the ability to plan, manage, organise, give advice on policy and take policy decisions on youth justice is retained separately—obviously linked with other parts of the criminal justice system, but separately. The way to deal with youngsters coming into the criminal justice system is entirely different from dealing with adults or old lags who reoffend.

Importantly, I would like the Minister to put on the record the fact that there will be absolute freedom for the successor body, if there is one as an advisory council, to speak when it wants to speak, to be able to say what it wants to say, and therefore to contribute to the public debate, as well as to the private debate. Will the Minister make it clear that if functions are to be transferred—I understand the Government’s argument about reducing the number of quangos—a Minister, for the moment presumably the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), would be accountable to Parliament specifically for youth justice issues, and would see that as a separate component within the realm of the prison service and justice issues as a whole.

Some of us remain to be persuaded that this is the right way to go, because of the good record of the Youth Justice Board, and some of us are troubled that we might lose those good things if it were to go, but we are open to persuasion if clear assurances are given and the questions asked by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman and me are answered adequately.

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

The Youth Justice Board has played a central role in reducing the number of criminal offences committed by young people since its creation, but the Government’s proposal to transfer its functions to the Ministry of Justice threatens to roll back the progress of the past decade. As we have heard, the YJB has pioneered the creation of a distinct youth justice system, separate from the adult estate, recognising that the factors that lead young people to commit crime are complex, and can be addressed only through specifically targeted crime prevention and rehabilitation strategies.

As we have heard, during the last Parliament the Youth Justice Broad oversaw a 43% reduction in the number of first-time youth offenders by working with youth offending teams to focus on the causes of crime. We have also heard, but it is worth repeating, that there has been a 34% reduction in offences committed by young people and a 15% reduction in the number of young people in custody, down from 2,830 per annum to 2,418 per annum by May 2010.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am sorry that time will not allow me to make a speech about this matter. I had the privilege of holding the youth justice portfolio for the Opposition for the past year before handing it over to my hon. Friend. That allowed me to see, while going round the country, the best practice in youth offending institutions, foundation training companies and youth offending teams. Without exception, they all praised the Youth Justice Board as the organisation that gives coherence, example and structure to what is happening. They cannot understand why the Government are abolishing a body that is proving to be such a success.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point extremely well. If we had had a proper amount of time for this debate, I am sure that he would have made his contribution.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the reduction in the number of young people in custody. I am sure that he is aware that that reduction has led to savings of some £38 million a year. Is he not amazed that a Government who are seeking to save money in public expenditure are prepared to take such a risk?

[Robert Flello]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The whole case for cost savings does not stack up in the slightest.

The Secretary of State has argued that bringing the Youth Justice Board into the Ministry of Justice will improve ministerial accountability, and thereby secure better outcomes for young people. That is nonsense, and was dreamed up to try to justify the ill-considered, back-of-a-fag-packet dumping of a mishmash of organisations associated with the Ministry of Justice into what amounts to a public relations Bill.

Let us consider ministerial accountability. Board members of the YJB are already appointed by the Secretary of State, and may be removed by the Secretary of State. The board provides a body of experts, who are accountable to Ministers, so where the lack of accountability comes in, heaven only knows. It also provides uniformity, bringing together local authorities, the prison service and the police.

The Youth Justice Board has a host of dedicated, experienced and specialist board members, but with the best will in the world, they will just be replaced by civil servants with limited knowledge of and less expertise in youth justice. Internalising the YJB in the Ministry of Justice will not replace the expertise. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service tend to follow the Youth Justice Board, not the other way around. Moreover, the YJB is widely respected for its expertise and independence, which have allowed it to build up important relationships with senior people across the youth justice sector. That will be lost if the Justice Secretary goes ahead with transferring the Youth Justice Board’s functions to the Ministry of Justice. Responsibility for placing children in the secure estate will be moved to the Ministry of Justice, but what will happen to youth justice research, performance monitoring, consultation with YOTs and the dissemination of good practice backed by solid evidence? At best, they will be reduced; at worst, they will be completely negated.

If nothing that I or anybody else have said so far convinces the Minster, surely the riots during the summer highlighted why an independent body for youth justice is required. When young people, many of them in their early teens, were attending courts around the clock, it was the Youth Justice Board that worked with them in their journey through the criminal justice system. The Government’s policy was, rightly, to make sure that those guilty of offences were brought to justice, but the same Department cannot be expected to support those young people while pursuing the Government’s justice policy. If the Minister was not aware of the contribution made by the Youth Justice Board, that is further evidence of how seamlessly the YJB works with the Ministry, because it was one of the organisations briefing him.

The Government argue that abolishing the Youth Justice Board will improve accountability and efficiency, but elsewhere the Government are squandering money on, for example, elected police commissioners and creating the biggest ever quango for the NHS. Ever since the Minister had a whip-round in his Department to rustle up some bodies to satisfy his Cabinet Office colleagues, the Justice Secretary has continued to make the case that the Youth Justice Board must be abolished to save costs.

The Government estimate savings of £6 million by 2014-15 but, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), they have not undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the YJB or the social impact of its abolition. They have not calculated the cost arising from the possibility of an increase in reoffending among young people. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the fact that in the past year the Ministry of Justice spent almost £8 million on furnishings. That is incredible. It is worth noting that the Youth Justice Board has cut its administration costs by 26% since 2008-09. It clearly understands how to be properly cost effective.

Cutting the Youth Justice Board will not save much money. Instead of saving the big sums that the Government have dreamt up, it is more likely that the real savings, if any, will amount to no more than a few hundred thousand pounds over a number of years. Instead of saving money, it threatens to undermine a youth justice system that is working, increasing costs over the longer term through higher criminality and the attendant costs to individuals and the state.

The Justice Secretary’s proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board is opposed by a range of charities and organisations, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, the Prison Reform Trust and the Children’s Society. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Magistrates Association have written to the Minister urging him to retain the Youth Justice Board as an arm’s length body.

During the riots, the police gold command and the National Offender Management Service commended the Youth Justice Board on its fantastic performance.

The organisation Catch 22 said:

“any reorganisation of the functions of the Youth Justice Board will result in a decreased focus on young people in the criminal justice system”.

In its report of February 2010, the Public Accounts Committee noted:

“In recent years, the Youth Justice Board has been effective in leading reform within the youth justice system and diverting resources to the offenders most at risk of committing future crimes. Since 2000, the number of young people entering the youth justice system, the number held in custody and the amount of reoffending committed by young people, have all fallen. Youth custody, which is expensive relative to other ways of dealing with young offenders, has fallen during a period when the number of adults in custody has continued to rise. This is a particularly noteworthy achievement.”

That says it all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

I want to take the Minister back to the answer he gave the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Will he tell the House to whom the Youth Justice Board reports at the moment? Is it not the Minister?

[Mr Blunt]

I have instituted arrangements within the Department during this transitional period for the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board to come and see me regularly on a bilateral basis. That did not exist when I became the Minister with responsibility for youth justice, when accountability was through the chairman of the board. I think that we now have a much more satisfactory working practice—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says that he does not really believe that. Well, I do believe it on the evidence of what has happened over the past 18 months. I will elaborate on that later in my remarks and tell him and the House why I have come to that conclusion.

The Justice Secretary recognises the need to strengthen the Ministry’s focus on youth justice by establishing a ministerial advisory group on youth justice. The group will provide timely advice to Ministers about delivery and the front line. That advice will inform the development of youth justice policy in the longer term. It will include advice on effective practice and what will work best to achieve the objectives that Ministers have set. The ministerial advisory group will be my key forum for providing external, expert oversight of operational youth justice practice to the Ministry of Justice. I will chair it as the Minister responsible for youth justice. It must consist of members who have expertise in the effective operation of the youth justice system; otherwise it will not be able to do the job that I need it to do and it will not have credibility with the informed youth justice lobby, which properly follows these matters with due care.

Finally, Dame Sue Street, a non-executive director at the Ministry of Justice, will take an active interest in youth justice within the Ministry. She has experience and knowledge of youth justice. Indeed, she undertook a review of the Youth Justice Board, but her remit did not include asking whether the Youth Justice Board should continue. Of course, as a non-executive member of the Ministry of Justice board, she will have a direct route to the permanent secretary and the Secretary of State. She is happy to take on those responsibilities as part of her role at the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has pre-empted part of my speech, which the House will be pleased to know I no longer need to elaborate, so I can somewhat reduce my speaking time. That point was made previously and he is quite right to highlight it.

I want to talk about three key issues: independent leadership, training in oversight and the issue of appeals. Before I do, however, I want to deal with costs. As I said, the Ministry of Justice costings of £11 million for start-up and £6.6 million recurrent for the chief coroner are, in the view of many, inflated. Before I give two examples to prove my point, it is worth considering what the public told ComRes about what they think of costs for an issue like this one. I am second to none in arguing that we need to drive down the costs of government, but there is always a balance to be struck.

According to the ComRes poll, more than two thirds of the public believe that appointing a chief coroner is a matter of principle, not a question of costs. We would all agree that ensuring the most appropriate support to families going through the system must always come ahead of costs. There are two examples from the costings put about by the Ministry of Justice previously in 2008. One is that the IT system will cost £3.8 million, while the second is that £564,000 will be used on a public launch and other publications for this position. I know that the Royal British Legion would be particularly keen to have this discussion. In its alternative to the Government’s proposals, it stated:

“The Royal British Legion and INQUEST would share the Government’s concerns about costings if they were as high as the Ministry of Justice figures suggest”.

The answer is to challenge those costings in a way that the coalition Government have sadly not been able to do since they came to power and to look seriously at the alternative costings put forward by the Royal British Legion and Inquest. It is a bit difficult because I have not had access to all the necessary budget lines. Those organisations have proposed a slower roll-out so the costs can be challenged and spread across the Parliament.

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman is putting his case well. On that point about costings, does he know that the Royal British Legion, Inquest, CRY and a whole host of other organisations, along with Members, have repeatedly tried—whether through parliamentary questions, freedom of information or whatever—to get the information from the Ministry of Justice, yet at every opportunity, it clams up and refuses to give the detailed figures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on his excellent contribution and on tabling his amendment, which we will support. He articulated succinctly and powerfully why the Government are wrong on this issue and must think again. He made it clear that this is not about party politics; rather, it is a matter of national concern. We share that view.

The last time this Bill was debated in the Chamber, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said he was confident that the Government’s proposals to transfer certain statutory functions from the role of chief coroner would “gain widespread support”. He could not have been more wrong. I am not aware of a single organisation that has accepted the wisdom of the Government’s approach; instead, all remain highly critical. In fact, the Government have managed to manoeuvre themselves into a situation where they are pitched against the Royal British Legion, INQUEST, Cruse Bereavement Care, Victim Support, Action against Medical Accidents, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the Child Bereavement Charity, Disaster Action, Support after Murder and Manslaughter, Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide, The Compassionate Friends, RoadPeace and Brake, the road safety charity. It is a remarkable achievement for any Government to find themselves opposed on such an issue by so many organisations that do so much good work for so many people in this country.

[Robert Flello]

It is also important to add to the list the Marchioness Action Group, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity and other charities and organisations who say with one voice that the Government have got this wrong and that they should change their mind.

[Michael Dugher]

My hon. Friend adds to the list, and a written answer from the Ministry of Justice to my hon. Friend states that it is calculated that at least 95% of responses to the Department’s consultation on the Bill support the RBL call not to abolish the position of chief coroner.

It is widely acknowledged that there are currently great variations in both the manner and quality of coronial inquests. It is clear that reform is long overdue. The creation of the post of chief coroner was at the heart of the new reforms introduced under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and that was the result of three years of review and consultation and proposed on the basis of cross-party support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

We are all aware of the importance of the issue and the outcome of this debate has the potential to affect thousands of people who come into contact with the coroner system, often in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Honouring the memory of those who give their lives for their country is very close to the heart of this Government, as it is to all hon. Members I am sure, but I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that our reforms go further, as they concern all coroners, not just military inquests.

Hon. Members will be well aware of the Government’s position on this. Urgent reform is needed to drive up standards across the piece and to learn lessons from the inquest process. This must be achieved through consistent training for coroners, by tackling the cause of delays in the inquest process, by setting a framework of standards that the bereaved have the right to expect from the coroner system and by removing barriers to hearing inquests at the most convenient location for bereaved families.

[Robert Flello]

After the disgraceful comments of the Minister’s colleague, who said, “These people are a disgrace,” this Minister said that he had had many discussions with the Royal British Legion, INQUEST and the like. Will he comment on the observations of those organisations that following those meetings they discovered that what had been said to one group about one organisation differed from what that organisation had actually said? There has much sleight of hand.

[Mr Djanogly]

I would disagree with that. I had meetings with them together as well as separately. It is true that they opposed our proposals on one hand, but they were also in discussions with us in order to make our proposals work better. I was very grateful for their input and I can tell hon. Members that what has come about has been based partly on the changes they suggested.

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enables us to do all the things I have outlined. I accept that the Act, as originally drafted, envisaged that some functions would be carried out by a chief coroner, but that is not the only way of implementing the reforms. Indeed, the transfer of functions to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor will ensure that they are taken forward quickly, effectively and without the cost associated with establishing the office of chief coroner. I assure hon. Members that the independence of the judiciary is every bit as secure in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice as it would have been in the hands of the chief coroner. Debates in this House and the other place, as well as my own stakeholder engagement, have clearly shown that there are widely held misconceptions about the extent of the chief coroner’s powers. In practice, the chief coroner’s powers to direct coroners would have been limited and any leadership would have been provided entirely through influence and persuasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

No, I will not give way because of the lack of time.

That is one of the issues that is at the heart of tonight’s debate. We have an opportunity to do something to respond to those views. The Minister’s response has been appalling. The Minister spent half of his speech on issues that were more or less off the subject, which is not surprising as he seems to have inhabited a parallel universe during most of his conversations with the groups who have put their case forward. At this of all times they urge the Government to do the right thing. I do not say this lightly, but in 14 years as a Member of the House I have seldom if ever read a more damning brief on the Government’s performance than that which many Members will have received from the Royal British Legion. It said:

“Any suggestion that a Chief Coroner just for military inquests could achieve the essential reforms needed would be misguided and would entirely miss the point. It is not what we are calling for….The Government’s costings are inflated”

as many Members have said. It continues:

“Ministers have tried to imply that we are to blame for reforms supposedly being ‘delayed'. We totally reject this misleading charge. It is the Government that is delaying reform. It was the Government who cancelled the Chief Coroner's appointment after the post had been filled…Why should they”—

families—

“have to go to expensive judicial review when they could appeal to a Chief Coroner to resolve issues more speedily and cost-effectively?”

There seems to be no indication from the Government Front Bench that the building up of a body of evidence from the excellent coroners who have been referred to is a crucial part of the process. Instead, we have heard from a Minister on the defensive describing a whole collection of twisted and complex arrangements that will do nothing whatsoever.

[Robert Flello]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Marsden]

I am sorry, but I will not.

The great military and diplomatic historian Garrett Mattingly said that to do justice to the dead as well as to the living is what matters. That is one of the issues at the heart of tonight's debate. I urge Members on both sides of the House to take those points on board, consider what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole has said and support his amendment.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The Justice Committee has on two occasions—in its present and previous form—published reports dedicated not to the creation of an office or a title, but to fundamental reform of a system in which there are too many differences across the country. There are too many differences in the ability and efficiency of coroners, in how they are resourced and how their offices are provided for, and too little support and sympathy is shown for bereaved relatives, whether military or those who belong to any of the other categories that have been mentioned today. The important question is not the title, but whether the reforms are actually carried out.

The Minister left me a little confused on whether some High Court judge will ultimately have the words “chief coroner” added to his title. My primary objective is to see reform of the system, rather than someone acquire the title, merit though I see in there being someone who could exercise some professional leadership, just as the head of ACPO exercises professional leadership among police officers and the heads of other organisations.

[Robert Flello]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I will not, as I want to be brief in order to allow another Member to speak in the time that remains.

The Justice Committee never wanted to see an office of the chief coroner that would be vast, expensive or become involved in the provision of an alternative appeals system, which in my view would never be a proper role for a chief coroner. A chief coroner could help to ensure that cases were handled by the right coroner and that the necessary advice had been given, but appeals against what happened in an inquest need to be to a superior court that has the capacity to examine the legal questions that will then arise.

The coroners system does not exist in Scotland. If military casualties were flown directly to Scotland, they would not be the subject of inquests, unless of course that were to be stipulated in the Bill, because the Scottish system depends on the procurator fiscal deciding that there is something to be investigated, which a wholly different approach. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have always assumed that having the coroner as an objective adjudicator of the cause of death in cases where that was in doubt, or where the state was involved, was a necessary part of our system. Making that system work effectively should be our primary objective.

I welcome the attention that the Royal British Legion has given the matter and remain of the view that it would be useful to have professional leadership from someone designated as chief coroner, but what I want more than anything is for the Government to go ahead with introducing proper, judicially based support for the coroners system so that we can ensure that coroners are properly resourced and are of even quality across the country.

Badgers and Bovine TB

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Glindon]

I hope that the Minister has noted my hon. Friend’s concerns.

The Minister and the Secretary of State should listen to the experts and the scientists and, instead of pressing forward with plans for culling, refocus their efforts to eradicate bovine TB by concentrating Government resources on developing vaccination methods, along with other measures that are currently being deployed. Other countries where bovine TB is a problem, such as New Zealand, Ireland and the USA, are all working on vaccines. The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has carried out vaccine trials in Gloucestershire, as has been mentioned, so momentum is growing in that direction. Culling is not the answer. Sound scientific evidence tells us that we must move in a different direction and try to work with the measures, some of which the current Government are carrying forward, put in place by the previous Government, which definitely work.

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

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point, and I am very grateful to her for securing today’s debate. [Interruption.] I wish that Government Members would not heckle, because it is so annoying. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has mentioned dairy farmers who are, quite rightly, opposed to this and who, quite rightly, do not want culling on their land. Will my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) spend a moment addressing the issues around a free-for-all cull, where licensed guns are wandering around looking for anything black and white moving in the undergrowth? Will she spend a moment addressing what will happen when there is a dairy farmer slap bang in the middle of one of these areas who says, “No, we are not having that on my land”? How will that affect the supposedly scientific cull?

[Mrs Glindon]

I have spent a number of hours reading all kinds of evidence about this, and the main worry about policing and control is that there is none. Natural England will license the guns, and farmers and landowners will come together and train people to shoot, but it must be emphasised that the shooting will not be controlled as it was under the scientific trials. The problem is that the shooting might be random and that there will be no one to enforce any safety measures whatever. The badgers will be shot as they are running or moving along as badgers do in the undergrowth, but who will keep people off the target site or ensure that the shot badgers are killed outright and not wandering off in pain to die a cruel death or, if wounded, wandering away from their setts and spreading the disease?

I urge the Minister to rethink culling. The science is the route, and the science says, “Do not cull!” Will the Minister consider the vaccine route? Resources should be poured into vaccine, ensuring that farmers and badgers have an equal say and that we do not look at killing before we look at curing.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I am disappointed that I had to ask Mr Speaker for this morning’s debate, disappointed that the Minister has had to come to the House to try yet again to defend his position and disappointed that the Government are all over the place on the question of wild animals in circuses.

I am grateful for the support of Members from both sides of the House, and I know that many loyal Government Members will be saddened that they should have to raise the matter. I thank those Members who are here today and those who have sent apologies for not being able to attend; this debate clashes with other business of the House and some Members who wanted to attend cannot do so. However, the hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and others are present, and I am grateful to them for attending.

I realise that after the forestry U-turn, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot see the wood for the trees, but are Ministers really saying that the thousands of people who have signed The Independent’s online petition are wrong, that the 94.5% who responded to the consultation are wrong, or—dare I say it—that the vast majority of the British public are wrong? I understand that the Secretary of State has said that most people would prefer not to see wild animals performing in circuses. The British Veterinary Association has said that

“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus; especially in terms of accommodation and the ability to express normal behaviour. A licensing scheme will not address these issues.”

Despite all those people saying that 21st century Britain is no longer willing to allow wild animals to perform in travelling circuses, we have a Government and a Department that are dithering and scrabbling to find the flimsiest of arguments to avoid a ban. The Secretary of State is looking to implement a licensing scheme. It is likely to cost £1 million, but it will not resolve the issue—and I thought that the Government were opposed to new regulations and wanted to save money.

Why can DEFRA find time to bring in a new licensing scheme and £1 million to underwrite it, but it cannot pursue a ban? It cannot still be awaiting the consultation results, because they were available more than a year ago. It cannot be starting from scratch, as I understand from the Minister responsible for animal welfare in the last Labour Government that all the paperwork was in the Department’s red box last March. Is it that the Minister does not know his Annies from his Nellies? No; I think that he has learned that lesson. Perhaps it is because a huge number of circuses and animals are involved. No, only four circuses are involved—not 40 or 400, but four—and about 40 or so beautiful wild animals. At least, that is how many there are now, but under this marvellous licensing scheme it could well become 60, or 100 or more.

Are someone’s human rights being violated? The Minister of State seemed to think so, given his answer to an urgent question in the House on 19 May, yet DEFRA’s impact assessment, which was undertaken as part of the consultation, states that there are no human rights aspects. The thought that someone’s human rights could be infringed by banning wild animals from circuses would make a mockery of all rights.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Is there a reason why the previous Labour Government failed to address any of these issues in 13 years of government?

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but he is not correct. When the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was going through the House, we debated banning the use of wild animals and concluded that a report—the Radford report, which I shall come to in a moment—should be commissioned. Indeed, by March 2010 a ban was on the cards.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

On the cards?

[Robert Flello]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take part in the debate or just sit and heckle all morning?

Is the problem that the European Circus Association may—or could, or is thinking about, or is sabre-rattling, or has thought up a good ruse, or just might—take a case to the Austrian court? Is Parliament now bound by the whims of a lawyer acting for a European association?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Governments have been given legal advice saying that it would be impossible to ban the import of cat and dog fur, and the same was said of seal fur, yet when Governments challenged that so-called legal advice they were able to make those bans happen. Does he agree that we should challenge the legal advice in this instance, thus ensuring that we ban this cruel practice once and for all?

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Indeed, I was coming to that very point.

How long does the Minister intend to wait to see whether that hypothetical court case actually starts? If the legal advice from DEFRA officials is so overwhelming, I am sure that the Secretary of State will be only too pleased to publish it. Does the Minister have a copy with him, or will he place it in the Library later today? Legal advice supplied to me suggests that the UK is entitled to make its own domestic legislation on this matter.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman may recall that, on the day of the urgent question, I asked the Minister if he would publish the legal advice that he had received. I am pleased to advise the House that I received a letter from the Secretary of State yesterday; the Minister has followed through on his commitment to discuss the matter with her. However, I am disappointed and frustrated that, in line with practice elsewhere in government, the Secretary of State has declined to publish that advice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we cannot see the advice from Government lawyers, it places a greater burden of responsibility on the Minister to argue the merits of that position?

[Robert Flello]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it does indeed place an extra burden, an extra duty, on the Minister. I repeat the point that, if the legal advice is so overwhelming, we should be able to scrutinise it.

I shall take a step back and set out our recent journey to this point. Circuses existed long before wild animals became a feature. Indeed, it is often said that the Roman circuses were the foundation for what we know today. The use of animals in circuses probably dates back to the early 18th century, when exotic animals were put on display. The year 1833 is often cited, as that was when big cats were first seen in a cage act at a circus. Interestingly, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed in that year, as was the Factory Act that limited child labour—a connection that is slightly ironic.

During the passage of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it was agreed that the use of wild animals in travelling circuses should be banned, subject to there being sufficient scientific evidence. The circus working group, chaired by Mike Radford, concluded that there was not sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban. However, on a closer reading of the 2007 report, the conclusion seems to be that there is almost no evidence to consider—no evidence to support a ban, and no evidence to support the status quo. My reading of the Radford report is that there is no scientific data for either side to rely on.

There is another argument, however. Do we really need a report to tell us right from wrong? Does a report that says there is insufficient evidence override our moral sense of what is or is not acceptable? In the 20 years leading up to 1833, did Wilberforce say in the face of so-called evidence against him, “Oh well, that’s okay. I’ll give up now.”? No, of course not, and neither should we. I do not suggest that the owners of travelling circuses are cruel or that they mistreat their animals, but I fail to see—and looking around me, I note that colleagues who are here in support of a ban, fail to see—how keeping wild animals in mobile cages as they travel around the country, even with some respite in exercise areas, is for the best welfare of the animals concerned. Perhaps it is me, but I find it plain wrong that wild animals should be used in travelling circuses.

As an important aside, I believe that it is wholly unacceptable for circuses to be targeted for vandalism and worse. We should not descend to that level but should win the argument instead.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is absolutely right to push this issue. The Government should re-examine the legal case, so that we can move towards a ban as speedily as possible. Does he not think that a further Back-Bench debate, which many are pushing for at the moment, would give us the opportunity to re-examine the legal argument and the apparent legal impediment to a ban? We need to ensure that the Government are given the tools and the encouragement to move towards a ban as quickly as possible.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Radford report suggests that, because of the lack of scientific evidence, the legal impediment comes from the use of secondary legislation. It says that the ban could be implemented if Parliament passed primary legislation. Having not seen the legal advice, I can only speculate that that is the problem and that the Ministry is unwilling to go down the route of primary legislation.

[Andrew George]

I was referring to the EU services directive and the debateable position of the Austrians. If we can learn lessons from that, we could ensure a smooth passage towards a ban.

[Robert Flello]

Indeed, but coming back to the European services directive, the legal advice that I have seen suggests that that was not an issue. The complaint against the Austrian Government was made in 2008. The European Circus Association took Austria to the European Commission and made a complaint. The case was folded and no further action was taken. The ombudsman looked into the matter and felt that reasons should have been given. Ultimately, though, he found that the European services directive did not apply in this circumstance and that it was up to nation states to bring in their own legislation. Again, I come back to my initial point: if the Secretary of State made available the legal advice, it would be far easier to mount a challenge and for lawyers on both sides to determine whether or not it was robust. If there was a problem, they would at least be able to see it in the open.

The 2007 Radford report noted that circuses have hesitated to update cages and facilities because of the uncertainty. It said then that the status quo was unsustainable, and that was getting on for four years ago. It says that we cannot continue in this way. The Government’s own impact assessment says that human rights are not an issue and legal advice says that the European services directive is not an issue, so what is the issue?

As Members already know, circuses are exempt from the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 does not address the welfare requirements of performing animals, and as I have mentioned previously, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be hard to bring to bear when circuses are travelling around the country. Where does that leave us? In my view, it leaves us quite rightly pushing for a total ban on wild animals in travelling circuses.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. This issue has been of interest to me from my time at Belfast city council when we banned animal circuses from using council property. I am interested in one of the challenges that is presented by exotic animals being permitted in circuses. Under regulation, or self-regulation, people are required to go through constant retraining as new species are introduced into circuses. Is there not a chance that that is just impractical in protecting animal welfare and that a complete ban on all species would be better?

[Robert Flello]

The other thing that that raises is a widening of scope. If it was difficult to use a type of wild animal because it was mentioned in regulation, would circuses effectively be encouraged to start looking at other species to get round the cumbersome and burdensome regulations? All this leaves us pushing for a total ban on wild animals in travelling circuses, as discussed during the passage of the 2006 Act and as proposed at the end of the previous Government. Although the lack of scientific evidence for or against the ban would seem to preclude using secondary legislation, it is for Parliament to use primary legislation to give weight to the ethical issues, the will of the British public and the rights and needs of wild animals themselves.

In conclusion, we have a situation in which DEFRA is once again in disarray and out of touch with the public. The Minister has been given another chance today to get this right. I hope that he will announce today that his Department will introduce a ban without further delay and that the use of wild animals in circuses will be another Victorian legacy that can be properly assigned to the past.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Does any other Member want to speak? Members have to stand if they want to speak.

Intensive Dairy Farming

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. At some point, we may need to have another debate about the scope of the ombudsman’s jurisdiction and powers, but perhaps we can leave that to one side for the remainder of today’s debate.

I said at the outset that this debate is not primarily about the specific proposals for Nocton, but one aspect of intensive dairy farming is that it can adversely affect local communities in several ways. As I have seen from my postbag, the ongoing application for the proposed farm at Nocton is almost universally opposed by the communities in which it would be sited, and by those who have lived in settled farming communities for all their lives. This is not nimbyism—at least it is not just nimbyism. It is a legitimate desire to maintain recognisable rural communities away from the hurly-burly of the industrialised practices that are associated with such farms, just as they are associated with light or heavy industry.

Also, let us not forget the slurry: cows produce slurry, which must be disposed of. Digesters are part of the answer for such operations, but significant quantities of dirty water remain to be disposed of either through environmentally-unfriendly tankering operations or through discharge, which, unless carefully managed, runs the risk of polluting aquifers.

As far as the opposition in my constituency to Nocton is concerned, the problem emphatically is not exclusively about odour—an odour which those of us who live in the countryside are used to and, indeed, of which we are rather fond. Effluent contains pathogens and other harmful substances, including residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines. The use of anaerobic digestion to process slurry cannot mitigate the entire problem, particularly when dealing with waste from a large number of cows.

This may not be a problem at present in Lincolnshire—although it is worth noting that it is one of the driest counties in the country—but the fact is that this country and the world face increasing pressure on water resources. Intensive dairy farming units would put a great deal of strain on those resources, as they use large quantities of water. Dairies such as those proposed for Nocton can cause strain on local water resources. I venture to suggest that, if this country were to go down the road of intensive dairy farming, the Minister might wish to regulate where such farms can be sited, given local water resources.

Another reason why local communities are right to be concerned about proposals for large-scale dairy operations—I shall end my substantive comments today with this—are the traffic issues associated with any form of industrialised process, whether in the farming industry or any other. Large numbers of cows that are milked for high yields produce large quantities of milk that need to be transported, and require deliveries of all manner of feed and other products associated with their maintenance and support. In areas where traffic is already an issue, the strain that would be placed on existing infrastructure would be, at best, undesirable.

In areas where traffic is not an issue, perhaps because of their rural nature, the position would be just as bad. Additional traffic movements, particularly of heavy and slow-moving vehicles, could contribute to accidents. Communities in those areas are not used to such traffic, and there is not the infrastructure to deal with the issues surrounding the additional movements. To some extent, that is certainly the case at Nocton, where such issues rightly concern many of my constituents.

The solution to all that, as matters are at present, is that we need to make careful inquiries about the mega-dairy bandwagon and prevent it from gaining steam. At the same time, we must recognise that the necessary price of that is developing and paying properly for the remaining existing dairy farming industry.

We need a rural economy based on sustainable, conventional dairy farming, which includes farmers breeding robust cows that retain the capacity to look after themselves—cows grazed on pasture during the grazing season, and farmers striving for and achieving greater longevity for their animals, producing valuable male calves that can be reared economically for beef.

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

I apologise for my late arrival; unfortunately, I was detained elsewhere in the House on other business. I have thoroughly agreed with and enjoyed as much of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech as I have been able to listen to.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that mega-dairies are actually the thin end of the wedge, and that we may well find in the future that there is almost no rural economy? The ideal location for one of these super-sheds is somewhere like Stoke-on-Trent, on a brownfield site next to major road infrastructure, where materials, feed and so on can be brought in, and waste products can be removed. This could be the start of the end of the British dairy farming industry.

[Stephen Phillips]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was my reason for asking for this debate in the first place. It is also the reasoning behind my solution. Mega-dairies are not the road to take. The hon. Gentleman raises the prospect of super-dairies being sited in large sheds on brownfield sites, with all the difficulties that that would cause in respect of not only deliveries of milk, feed stuffs and so on, but disposal of the animals’ waste, which would have to be tankered away from such sites—nothing else can be done with it. I agree that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that is why we have to face it down. I hope to hear from the Minister that that is the Government’s view.

Intensive dairy farming is not the future that I wish to see. I hope that the Minister agrees with my view, which is that, in the best interests of the industry, rural Britain and our dairy farmers, we should create a supply chain that ensures that farmers receive a proper price for their milk. We do not need any super-dairies, whether at Nocton or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate, his measured introduction and balancing clear arguments on welfare and costs. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who brings personal expertise to this debate in a way that most hon. Members cannot? It is more than 60 years since I first tried to milk a cow by hand and if I tried it today, I probably would not be good at it.

Anybody who has been brought up in the west country, as I was fortunate enough to be, cannot fail to recognise the importance of the dairy industry to the rural economy and to our countryside environment.

My hon. and learned Friend initially said that super-dairies were a planning issue, although he moved away from that posture. Technically, that is correct, as is the case with the one in his constituency, but I venture to suggest that the issue goes much deeper and is a moral one. Those of us who are sad enough to wake up too early and find ourselves listening to “Farming Today” know only too well, because we hear about it with monotonous regularity, the plight of the dairy industry. Having heard the figures—they were placed on the record again this morning—we understand how dairy farmers are being screwed by the supermarket industry. That may be inelegant, but it is accurate.

The debate so far has concentrated on the obvious economic problems to the detriment, to some extent, of the moral argument. Those of us who have knocked around in this place for a bit—some of us are here today—participated in the campaign to ban veal crates in the United Kingdom. We were highly delighted when we succeeded, and the Government of the day outlawed the use of crates in this country. With glorious hindsight, with which we are blessed, it was a pyrrhic victory, because all we did was to move the problem from A to B, and veal calves that were once reared under relatively humane conditions, albeit not desirable, in the United Kingdom are now reared under infinitely worse conditions on mainland Europe. Not only that, they are first transported to mainland Europe by sea. Far from win-win, we can fairly say with hindsight that it was lose-lose.

My concern is that unless we get the matter right, we are in grave danger of moving the dairy problem from A to B, to the detriment of the British dairy industry and of animal welfare, so again it could be lose-lose. Reference was made to regulations from Brussels being an argument for another day but, with respect, I believe that it is an argument for today. Unless we engineer a situation that overrides European regulations on free trade, and put in place measures that will not allow to be sold in the United Kingdom animal produce that has been reared under conditions that we would not permit in this country, we shall lose.

I detect that no one in the Chamber wants super-dairies to take over from traditional dairy farms, but the danger is that those who fund the super-dairies will take their money to northern France, Belgium, Holland or elsewhere close by on mainland Europe and produce precisely the same quantities of milk under precisely the same undesirable circumstances. We will import it and our British dairy farmers will go out of business.

[Robert Flello]

I am listening with great interest and appreciating the passion of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Will he draw some parallels with what has happened in the pottery industry in my constituency, where the work has gone abroad? Pottery owners drove down prices as much as possible to try to compete with cheap imports until they were no longer competitive. Production moved abroad, goods were produced more cheaply and then imported back, and were passed off as being produced here because they were packaged here. Is not the same thing happening already in the food industry with pork being imported, packaged and sold to unsuspecting British consumers as though it were British pork? I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument, and perhaps he will draw some parallels.

[Mr Gale]

I will not be tempted down that road, simply because it is probably outside the remit of this debate, and because there is a fundamental difference. Of course, I accept that cheap imports of anything from anywhere can damage our UK producers and, therefore, to some extent our UK economy. Mass production is a feature of the world, and we import goods from all over the world, but we are talking about welfare. We still import veal that has been produced in veal crates, while not allowing veal crates here. That is a welfare issue. We still import chickens and pigmeat that are produced under intensive conditions that we would simply not allow in the United Kingdom. I fail to see how it can be right for us to shackle United Kingdom agricultural producers and to tie one, if not both hands behind their back, while cheerfully allowing European trade regulations to override all those welfare considerations so that our markets are flooded by anything from anywhere, produced under any circumstances. That is morally wrong, and we must stop it.

If the public seriously believe in the moral and welfare issues, they must be prepared to pay. We must be prepared to pay a fair price to farmers for our food—not to the middle man or the supermarket, but at the very beginning to farmers. That is the only way to secure the right to demand high animal welfare standards. But I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in tandem with that, we must get regulation under control so that we not only pass, but enforce on Europe and the rest of the world the welfare regulations that we apply to ourselves here in the United Kingdom.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Robert Flello]

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

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

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

On that point, has the hon. Gentleman any assessment of what percentage of that rain forest destruction, which I accept has taken place, relates to the import to this country of soya-based products, and what percentage relates to the rest of the world?

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and that is just the sort of thing that we should discuss in Committee, if the Bill receives its Second Reading today.

The claims over the past decade of abundant food and EU food mountains have now switched to the familiar cry that we need to double food supply in the next 10 years or so, yet how can such an increased reliance on oil help with food security? A dairy farmer in Whitmore, near my constituency, who is leading the way on sustainable livestock farming, put it simply. He said that it is now the job of dairy farmers to turn oil into milk. However, he sees his role as trying to produce high volumes of milk with minimal oil, and that is the sustainable, food-secure route. He does it by using natural pasture and clovers.

If we really need to increase food production, why are we feeding cereals to animals? It is very inefficient. It takes around 20 kg of cereal to produce just 1 kg of edible beef. That is not food-secure. Some 58% of EU cereal production is used in animal feeds, and that is supplemented by the 33 million tonnes of soya imported each year. How is that food-secure?

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is there not a more important issue, in that much of the soya is not even kept in the food chain, but is used for making oil and for burning?

[Robert Flello]

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

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

[Ian Paisley]

Clause 1(2)(e) refers to

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

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

[Robert Flello]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I cannot speak for the promoter of the Bill, and unless he seeks to intervene to clarify that matter, I fear that it will remain unanswered.

The final point that I want to make is that there is a real muddle in the Bill about its extent and application. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Bill purports to relate to England and Wales, despite the fact that Wales has devolved responsibility, but the body of the Bill contains all sorts of references to applicability to the United Kingdom, and indeed to countries overseas. I think it shows that the Bill was cobbled together at the last minute—but that is not to suggest that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South put the Bill together at the last minute.

I have a suspicion about what happened—I do not know whether I am correct, but it has often happened in the past. Hon. Members bring forward a private Member’s Bill. They get it drafted, but they are not quite ready to have it printed because they are waiting for the Government to provide an answer on various points. Then when they get the Government’s answer they realise that the Government are rather against a lot of the Bill’s provisions, so they redraft the Bill, perhaps on an iterative basis. That means that the Bill is redrafted very close to the time when it should be presented. The consequence is that it contains inconsistencies.

[Robert Flello]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Chope]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman has a tremendous reputation in the House, both for the ability to talk and for his concern for the democratic process in this place. Just to clarify the point for him, the Bill in its original form was subjected to severe and detailed amendment following a discussion with the Minister, and the new version of the Bill was put together following consultation with a range of organisations, not least the National Farmers Union. It has had a lot of discussion and a lot of planning in its current form; it was not rushed through. It took a little bit of time to prepare and went through a few iterations to ensure that it would have credibility and meet with understanding in the House.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but it makes it all the more disappointing that the Bill, notwithstanding all that careful work that has been done on it, contains such fundamental flaws as it is presented to this House. If we are to ask hon. Members to take up time examining Bills in detail in Committee, those Bills should be in a much better state before they go to Committee than this Bill is in. For that reason, were this matter to come to a vote, I would vote against giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking up his post. What message on gas imports, gas security and the whole pricing structure of gas will he give to my constituents—and, indeed, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)—among whom there are manufacturers of ceramic ware who are dependent on that gas and, more importantly, on fluctuations in the price of that gas, which can vary widely from week to week, and almost from day to day?

[Chris Huhne]

The key to many of these issues will be long-term contracts ensuring security of supply, and I have not seen any projections of our energy security that do not involve a very important continuing role for gas in the transition to a low-carbon economy. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

Much of our generating capacity is reaching the end of its working life or will not meet the increasingly stringent controls on emissions that will be imposed by the large combustion plant directive. By 2020, at least a third of our coal-fired capacity and nearly three quarters of our nuclear capacity is likely to have closed down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend anticipates a later section of my speech. He makes a very important point.

[Robert Flello]

Have I missed something here? Up and down the country, whenever I have seen protest flags and signs saying, “No wind farm here”, they have never said, “No wind farm here unless of course you want to give us some money.” Poorer communities will have to put up with wind farms as the only way of getting money into their communities while better-off communities will say, “Not in our back yard, thank you very much.”

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend eloquently makes his point. I am afraid that the truth is that the right hon. Gentleman, in his first few days in the job, has obviously sold down the river his former Liberal Democrat colleagues, and they will take note.

Let us move on to the next part of delivering the low-carbon agenda: nuclear power, which was a very small feature of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. He spoke one line through gritted teeth about nuclear power. I wonder why. I think that I know the reason. Let us be clear that our position on nuclear power is that the challenge of climate change is so great that we need nuclear as well as renewables and clean coal, because the challenge of climate change is so big. That is the position of the vast majority of Conservative Members––they are nodding away, which is great because we agree with them.

Of course, the Liberal Democrat position was against new nuclear power. The Liberal Democrats say in their manifesto that they

“reject a new generation of new nuclear power stations”.

But I am in a generous mood, so let us not criticise them for that, because the judgment is one of whether they have managed to achieve a proper long-term agreement, with a clear position, or whether they have just papered over the cracks.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), is instructive on the issue. He said about nuclear investment that

“Clarity is essential if new investment is to happen.”

I agree with him, so let us apply his test to the new Government. The coalition agreement says that the Government will introduce a national planning statement and that the Liberal Democrats can continue to maintain their opposition to nuclear power, but it does not end there. It says that

“a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will speak against the Planning Statement…but…Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain”.

Let us be clear that there is not one Government position on nuclear power, not two Government positions, but three positions: the Government are notionally in favour of it; a Liberal Democrat representative will speak against it—I do not know who that will be; it might be the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, or, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman—and the party itself will sit on the fence in any vote. We always knew that being a Liberal Democrat in opposition meant not having to choose, but old habits seem to die hard: they seem to think that being a Liberal Democrat in government means not having to choose either.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have passed responsibility for new nuclear power to his deputy, the hon. Member for Wealden. The responsibilities of the Department of Energy and Climate Change have come out and the Secretary of State seems to have abdicated responsibility for this issue. Delivering on new nuclear power is a very big task that needs the personal role of the Secretary of State. I used to chair the Nuclear Development Forum, bringing together all the different partners in industry to drive things forward and ensure that we would deliver on time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about abdicating responsibility to the Minister of State, much as I admire him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

That is not true, because when we look at what we have achieved, in terms of the reduction in carbon emissions in this country and the transition that we have started on new nuclear, which was initially opposed by both parties on the Government Benches, we see that we are making the transition that needed to be made.

[Robert Flello]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Miliband]

Let me move on to the third test, because I want to allow time for people to come in.

On the third test and the key challenge to ensure that the low carbon transition is fair, we welcome the measures on pay-as-you-save energy. However, there are two matters on which I cannot find anything in the coalition agreement or the Gracious Speech, and I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate at an early opportunity that he wants to move forward on them. The first is the regulation of private and social landlords for energy efficiency. The pay-as-you-save measures are important steps for home owners, but in the past few years we have not seen among private landlords the take-up of basic measures on loft and cavity wall insulation. It should not really be a matter of partisan debate, so I hope that the Secretary of State will move on regulation, because we are talking about some of the poorest people in our society, and they are living in substandard accommodation in terms of energy efficiency.

The second issue, which again I hope is not a matter of big disagreement, is about implementing the measure on compulsory social tariffs which we passed in the Energy Act 2010. In our manifesto we said that we would provide for money off the bills of older, poorer pensioners, and the Secretary of State will want to consider the options that are available to him, but again I hope that at an early opportunity he will make good on those measures.

[Robert Flello]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Miliband]

Let me make one other point on fairness, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

I also urge the Secretary of State, in his discussions on energy market reform, to look both at investment, which is very important, and at trying to open up the market beyond the big six energy companies, because the truth is that they control 99% of the market and it would be better for competition if we could find ways of opening it up. Ofgem has put forward some ideas, and if we had been back in government we would have wanted to push them forward.

[Robert Flello]

On my right hon. Friend’s last point, I must say that it is not only the big six energy companies that are playing the market for profit, rather than for the consideration of the final user, but the banks and traders. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s speech but heard no mention of the Warm Front scheme. I have had my concerns about its operational levels, but does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, because of yet another uncertainty, my constituents and those of other hon. Members do not know whether to press ahead and see if they can obtain some funding through Warm Front?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Warm Front has done a lot, and I hope that the Secretary of State, in the discussions that he will no doubt have with his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will defend that scheme.

We do wish the new Government well in this crucial policy area, both at home and abroad, but I say in all candour to the Secretary of State, as I have said in my speech, that if they carry on as they have started, fudging key differences and papering over the cracks, they will produce a recipe for muddle and confusion, and not the long-term direction that we need. Their renewables policy does not yet add up, because they have Lib-Dem targets with Tory planning policy; their nuclear policy does not add up, because they have three positions; and on industrial policy the risk is that short-term cuts will deny us the long-term economic strength that we need.

In the months ahead, we will hold the Government to account on delivery, because it is in the interests of everyone in this country that we deliver on fairness, on jobs, on energy security and on climate change.