National Pollinator Strategy

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Without the services of these pollinators, who depend on the sorts of measures my hon. Friend has mentioned, we would see a decline in the variety and availability of nutritious food in the UK, or we would have to introduce expensive mechanical or hand-pollination methods, which would drive up food prices in our country.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes the important point about the role of pollinators in agriculture, and yet we have some difficulty in getting a figure on that. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says in an article that it is worth between £186 million and £567 million, and yet a few inches down the page it says that the services are potentially worth only £500 million.

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about the evidence base, and that is a key part of the draft national pollinator strategy. I will come on to the importance of ensuring that we are very much an evidence-based policy-making body.

There is a mounting evidence base to show that a huge range of threats is leading to overall declines in the number of pollinators, but with no single factor accounting for those losses. There are numerous factors involved, with habitat loss and intensification of land use probably at the top of the list. Pests, disease, the use of agri-chemicals, invasive species and changes to the weather are all factors as well. Those factors affect different species, wild and managed, to different degrees and in different ways. According to the excellent Library briefing prepared for this debate, there is evidence that the losses in wild pollinator and wild insect-pollinated plant diversity might be slowing. But the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has produced a useful note that provides more detail for Members and for members of the public who are following this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I hope he was not one of the people wearing a bee outfit who stood next to me; I think he probably stood next to somebody else in a bee outfit.

The “Bee Cause” campaign and various others have done well to concentrate on the threats that pollinators face, but we should reflect not just on bees, both domestic and wild, but on pollinators across the board. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, they are, collectively, such an important element in the national health of our crops and fruits, and they interact with the natural environment in a whole range of other ways. We do not understand wild pollinators to the extent that we should; indeed, our EAC inquiry found that the general research is very ragged. We need to obtain a deeper understanding, particularly of pollinators in the wild. I hope the Department will take cognisance of that.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the relationship between the evidence produced by those who manufacture insecticides and those who commission it from a more green point of view is one of considerable mistrust? Would it not be a good thing if they could get together and agree on the outcome of their research? Perhaps then we could make more progress.

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree that the research commissioned by companies that have an interest in the outcome, particularly in field trials, can cause considerable mistrust. The research does not need to be done entirely independently, but the process does need to be clear and transparent. The companies should put their hands on the table and follow standards and protocols that can be supervised by external bodies. There is also a question mark in my mind as to whether the Department itself is awaiting a perfect piece of research, as it were, to inform its future findings. The Committee has concluded that there is no such thing as a perfect piece of research in “natural conditions,” because they have already been compromised. We should apply a probability principle to work that has already been done and then add properly peer-reviewed and supervised additional research to it. That might be much better than adopting the tentative but alarming position—which I think still pervades this debate—of simply considering how the research might inform us for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for securing this important debate. I know that many Members of Parliament have an interest in it, and I also congratulate the Select Committees involved on the work they have done.

Next Wednesday, 22 October, hon. Members are all welcome to come to Brecon and Radnorshire day, and I hope Peter Guthrie will be bringing along some of his honey for us to taste. We live in an area of rather less intensive farming than some of the more arable areas, so I do not think there will be any pollution from insecticides. Please do come along.

When the consultation on the strategy was launched, it itemised five fairly simple ideas, which I still think are very strong as far as pollinators are concerned. The first was to grow more nectar and pollen-rich flowers—we have heard all about that—whether on field boundaries or by local authorities. The second was to let patches of land grow wild. As we travel around Britain, we see lots of land that could be left uncultivated and do a good job for biodiversity. The third idea was to cut grass less frequently and perhaps not so early. That is another message for local authorities. Then there was not disturbing insect nests or hibernating insects and thinking carefully about whether to use a pesticide. I am sure that the strategy will go into more details, but those ideas sit at the foundation of our approach to this problem.

Much has been made of the contribution that pollinators make to agriculture, yet it has been difficult to get a figure or set of figures that anybody can agree upon. I am of the opinion that maintaining biodiversity and maintaining pollinators is a good thing in itself. My fear is that some figures might come forward showing that pollination does not play such a big part in agriculture, which might undermine our argument. In fact, I received a very good briefing from Friends of the Earth, which contained one sentence that I was very taken with:

“A scientific review of pollination services in 41 countries across Europe found that the UK only has a quarter of the honey bees it needs for pollination”.

That struck me as an extraordinarily disturbing figure, so I e-mailed Friends of the Earth last night. They came back with an answer that said, “Well, we don’t know how close we are to the tipping point,” but surely if we have only a quarter of the bees anyway—I am not quite sure about the other pollinators—that puts us in a very precarious position.

That compares with reports in yesterday’s papers that we have had the biggest bumper crop of apples that we have ever had. One thing for certain is that the apple crop needs pollination by insects.

It is difficult to correlate all these issues, which is why I support everyone who has said that we need a well co-ordinated approach to research. People in the agri-chemical industry must work openly and transparently along with others who are commissioning research.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does my hon. Friend agree when I say—or at least assert—that if we get a proper plan that works for bees and is seen to be working for bees in this country, other countries will take it on as a code of good practice? That would be extraordinarily good for them as it would be for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

I entirely agree. Co-ordination is needed not just within this country, but in other countries, to ensure that the research is productive and can be applied to encourage more pollinators.

Let me say a few words about the systemic neonicotinoids that have been banned in this country and across the EU for two years. I am not sure what figures are most accurate on the reduction in yield, but I do know that the flea beetle is a persistent offender, which can be detrimental to young crops, particularly to oilseed rape and other brassicas. It has been reported that farmers, rather than have just one application of this systemic neonicotinoid, are in fact spraying three or four times in order to safeguard the establishment of their crop. We believe that some of these sprays, such as the synthetic pyrethroids and the organo-phosphates, can be as damaging to pollinators as the neonicotinoids.

These issues are very complicated, so putting into practice any effective pollinator strategy is going to take money—and most of it is going to come out of the common agricultural policy—so that we encourage farmers to do such things as allowing field margins to remain uncultivated. Even more important is active management of those field margins to ensure that flowers and plants can be used by pollinators, but again that is going to cost quite a bit of money.

Let me raise with the Minister an issue I have raised a number of times before—the measly allocation of pillar two money for the United Kingdom. Normally, in most European countries, the ratio of pillar one money, which is the direct payments, to pillar two is 3:1; in Britain, it is 10:1. Our allocation of pillar two money for the next financial horizon is going to be only about £2.2 billion, which has to be spread between conservation and improving competition and marketing in the farming community and rural areas.

[Bob Stewart]

Is that pillar two money decided in Brussels? Do we have any influence on it? Can we do anything about it, or do we just have to sit and wait for a decision from Brussels?

[Roger Williams]

It is decided in Brussels, but the real problem is that it is decided on a historical basis. We have had low allocations of pillar two money for many years. It is believed that if the allocation were made on an objective basis, such as according to the amount of agricultural land, the number of people involved in agriculture or the number of forests, we would have at least 100% more pillar two money. It is tied up with complex issues such as our rebate and the Fontainebleau agreement. When the CAP was renegotiated, I thought that all these figures would be based on objective factors rather than historical factors. However, we have ended up with a £2.2 billion allocation, while France has £8.8 billion and Germany £7.8 billion. It is no wonder that the farming unions are trying to resist modulation and the green non-governmental organisations are going for higher modulation. If the farming unions had co-operated with the green NGOs and gone for a bigger allocation of pillar two money, we should not have had all that argument.

I am not sure whether anything can be done—it seems that the figures have been agreed to—but I think that that was a real disaster, and one of the programmes that could suffer as a result of it is the pollinator strategy, which desperately needs money. I understand that the new environmental land management scheme that DEFRA is introducing can be used for such purposes, and I hope the Minister will ensure that it is.

Food Fraud

Roger Williams Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered food fraud.

First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate on this important and topical issue. I must say that some of us had anticipated that the Government business would take rather longer this afternoon and that this debate would start rather later. I was given the information that we might have the debate this evening rather late last week, and despite the best efforts of my staff to contact right hon. and hon. Members to urge them to make a contribution, the message obviously got out rather late. Perhaps there was not much contentious business to debate today, either. Nevertheless, the debate is topical, coming soon after the Elliott report, which the Government commissioned following the horsemeat scandal of just over a year ago. I should declare my interests related to meat production, which appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I first became interested in food crime when I was elected in 2001. We were in the middle of a foot and mouth disease outbreak, and the election had actually been postponed for a month until the first Thursday in June so that the outbreak could be contained and dealt with. Unfortunately, it went on well after the election, particularly in my constituency. Thousands of sheep were slaughtered on the Brecon Beacons in an attempt to control the disease, which did happen. At that time, farmers were concerned about the lack of checks taking place at the ports on meat coming into this country. They were particularly concerned about the seaports through which meat was imported and the airports through which illegal meat was thought to come. I tabled a ten-minute rule Bill to ask the Government to re-examine the checks and balances, and that was what happened.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the lesson that we have learned about food fraud is that we need spot checks on processors so that they do not know we are coming? We should go to them and find out exactly what sort of meat they are processing so that we can stamp out fraud, rather than carry out general testing all the time, which is expensive.

[Roger Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is made in the Elliott report. Intelligence-led monitoring is also important. Controls on food coming into this country have been tightened at the airports and seaports. Sniffer dogs have been introduced at Heathrow, and I have been there and seen them in action. It was extraordinarily impressive to see dogs being able to find little bits of food that were being brought into the country—not intentionally but because somebody had forgotten they had left a ham sandwich in their suitcase or backpack.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on fighting on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned checks on food processors. Given the amount of food that comes into this country already processed, is my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) satisfied that spot checks and other measures can be undertaken outside the country?

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, because we are in the European Union we expect that all food that comes into this country will have been slaughtered, processed or manufactured to a standard that would be acceptable in this country. Food coming in from third world countries is another matter altogether. One issue that I concentrated on when I first became involved with the issue of food fraud was the smuggling of meat into this country from Africa. There were various types of meat, but the most serious were parts of primates, including gorillas, apes and monkeys, which certain ethnic communities in this country particularly value. It was obvious that there was no scrutiny of the safety of these meats or even what they were. There was a real concern that not only animal diseases but human diseases could be brought in by this means. Much of the meat came from west Africa. The problem of Ebola today shows that we might still face a real danger from this problem.

I certainly welcomed the final publication last Thursday of the Elliott review of the integrity and authenticity of the UK food supply. We waited quite a long time for the report, but it was worth the wait because it is a comprehensive and well set-out document. It demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to improving the integrity and assurance of our food supply networks. Professor Elliott’s report highlights that the UK has one of the safest food supply systems in the world, with a great deal of work being done to ensure that food is safe to eat and free from chemical and microbiological contamination, and all those involved in the supply of food and those responsible for developing and enforcing legislation should be commended for what has been achieved.

More attention and more resources, however, need to be put into food authenticity and combating food fraud and food crime. At the beginning of the horsemeat problem, the important question arose about what was meant by adulteration and what was meant by contamination. As far as I am concerned, contamination is not the deliberate introduction into food of other substances—it happens by mistake or inadvertently—whereas adulteration is the deliberate introduction into food of mostly lower-priced commodities. That issue was certainly at the heart of the horsemeat scandal.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will remember that I had some involvement in the problems at that time. It was important early on to establish a threshold for contamination/adulteration that made sense. Otherwise, we would have been in the absurd position of testing every piece of meat and finding that it was contaminated simply because somebody in the room might be shedding human DNA or because the meat had been sitting in a butcher’s shop where beef or pork sausages were not in separate airtight compartments. The level of the threshold, it seems to me, was one of the most important early advances we made in understanding the issue and ensuring that we were not attacking the wrong problem.

[Roger Williams]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work he did right at the beginning of the horsemeat scandal. He provided us with greater clarity about what was involved and about the difference between contamination and adulteration. Of course, contamination is not something that should be taken lightly in its own right. Halal meat contaminated by pork, for example, is a very serious matter for the religious beliefs of some of our communities. I do not in any way view contamination as of little interest; it is of great interest, but it must not be confused with the deliberate adulteration of food.

Food fraud is corrosive of consumer confidence, which has ramifications right through the food chain. The horsemeat contamination incident last year is an example of such a damaging effect on the food industry and on consumer trust. After “Horsegate”, a poll showed that only 56% of consumers were confident that the food they bought was what it claimed to be—a rather shocking statistic. This figure is far too high, and it is one of the reasons why it is so important that we are having this debate today.

Small businesses are especially vulnerable to food fraud, and according to the Elliott review, many have said they are struggling to stay in business because they are competing against those who cheat. That goes for farmers, too, as they grow the raw ingredients for the food industry and rely heavily on consumer confidence. It is essential to safeguard this industry.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Does he agree that there is huge pressure on the processors to reduce their prices, especially from some unscrupulous retailers? Of course, if we drive the price too low, beef cannot be put in the beefburgers and other things start to get mixed in with them. Although retailers are not directly responsible for what happens, I think they play a rather bad part in the whole saga.

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend is completely right that food fraud is price-driven—there is no doubt about that. Food adulteration and fraud are as old as history, as we know from many centuries of experience. The watering down of milk was one such example, but an even more heinous crime is the watering down of beer, which should carry an especially heavy penalty!

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

Is there watered-down beer in Brecon?

[Roger Williams]

We do not have any examples in Brecon; it is mostly down in south Wales! But the history books are full of examples of this sort of thing.

As I was saying, it essential to safeguard this industry. Food and farming is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, contributing £96 billion to the economy and employing almost 4 million people. It is essential to keep up confidence in the UK, while also protecting the reputation of our food abroad.

Another point inn Elliott’s proposals is the setting up of a cross-Cabinet Committee on food safety and food crime. I fully agree with that recommendation and I am glad that the Government have accepted it.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for giving way. Particularly in the light of the splitting of the roles and responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency in 2010, was he surprised that some sort of cross-Government or cross-Cabinet regular systematic group was not established to take account of that fact?

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—one that is addressed in the Elliott report and one that the Government have accepted, as I said. I am very pleased that the Government have accepted all the report’s recommendations, so we should pay tribute both to the report and to the Government’s response to it.

Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s point, there was such a cross-Government forum for co-ordination on food at Cabinet level until May 2010. Up to that point, there was also more clarity on the responsibilities for food, as the FSA then had the responsibility for authenticity, testing and policy on compositional labelling of food, as well as on nutrition policy, which subsequently went to the Department of Health.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way again. In his interim report, Professor Chris Elliott made it clear that he wanted to see both responsibilities returned directly to the FSA. In his subsequent final report—he has made it clear that it is because of the political difficulty—he has stepped back a little from that, but the suggestion is that he would still like to see this done. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that? Should these responsibilities be returned to the FSA?

[Roger Williams]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the full report by Professor Elliott, he will find that he responds to the concern that the final report took quite a long time to come out. He makes it very clear that none of the recommendations in the final report is the result of any political pressure, but are the result of his committee looking at the issue and coming up with what he believes are the best proposals for protecting food and consumers.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

No doubt the Minister will correct me later if I am wrong, but I believe that Professor Chris Elliott said he was loth to include the full recommendation in the interim report—that is, the recommendation that all the responsibility should be returned to the FSA—and made it clear that that was because of the political difficulty of doing so. I make that point purely for the sake of accuracy.

[Roger Williams]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will develop his point further when he makes his own speech, and that the Minister will do so as well.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he has already pointed out very eloquently, the Government will be setting up—at a very early date—a cross-departmental Committee, which I think will prevent the same thing from happening again.

On Thursday, the Minister did not have time to respond to an important question that goes to the heart of this issue, namely the question of what is happening in regard to traceability and labelling at European Union level. I hope that we shall be able to stay here all evening and hear about that at first hand from him.

[Roger Williams]

As always, the Chairman of the Select Committee has made a very good point. I listened to what she said on “Farming Today”. Was it on Thursday? I cannot remember. When one is up very early in the morning, the days may not be readily identifiable. Anyway, the hon. Lady made the very good point that the real problem with the horsemeat scandal was that we had never identified the point at which the horsemeat entered the food chain. There have been a number of prosecutions, but they have taken place on a very small scale. Whoever perpetrated this fraud on such a large scale is still out there, and is still, perhaps, waiting for an opportunity to commit either the same or a similar crime.

The real problem is that we do not know where that horsemeat came from. Were the animals slaughtered in a registered slaughterhouse? Were they slaughtered in a farm barn? Was the meat properly looked after? As it turned out, there was not, we understand, a very big threat to public health, but that may have been due more to luck than to judgment.

[Miss McIntosh]

In order to prevent a Select Committee love-in, may I press my hon. Friend a little further? I think that the key proposal from Professor Elliott is the proposal for a food crime unit, with intervention by the police. However, even a close reading of the Secretary of State’s written statement does not make immediately clear what powers the police will have. Perhaps my hon. Friend has had more time to look into the matter than I have.

[Roger Williams]

I have not, but I was going to mention the establishment of a police crime unit, which I think is essential. This was criminal: laws were broken, and people should face the consequences. I hope that the new unit will ensure that those people are brought to book in future, that they are named and shamed, and that they will not be able to have a role in the food industry again.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for indulging me a third time. I rather fear that a few small operators may have been singled out for what happened, and that there are some very big guys out there who have never been thoroughly investigated.

[Roger Williams]

That is the point that I was trying to make. There have been a number of arrests, but on a very small scale. Certainly the prime operator in the crime has not been identified and brought to book. It is important for there to be a police involvement, but it is also important for there to be an international police involvement. As the horsemeat scandal demonstrated, the food chains are very long and convoluted, and the people involved often do not actually handle the meat at all. They are traders who buy and sell it without ever knowing its quality or composition. It is therefore essential for an international police view to be maintained.

[Ian Swales]

While we are on the subject of crime, may I ask what my hon. Friend thinks are the ultimate responsibilities of retailers? Are they not ultimately responsible for what they sell? Does my hon. Friend believe that the right controls are in place, and that the penalties are right? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned the prices of some of the processed meals involved. Does my hon. Friend not think that the retailers ought to have known that those meals could not have been produced at that price with the proper contents?

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. As has already been pointed out, price is the driver of food crime, and as Professor Elliott said in his report, if major retailers or processors have a deal that is too good to be true, they should trace it to its source. Both processors and retailers have a real responsibility in that regard. It is no good saying that they have not the facilities or the wherewithal; they have the ultimate responsibility.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good and wide-ranging speech on the basis of his experience. He mentioned European and international co-operation, whose importance Professor Elliott has stressed strongly and repeatedly. Did he share my concern when, only a few months after the height of the horsemeat scandal, the European Commissioner for crime and justice—who deals with such collaborative approaches—remarked how preposterous it was that, at a time when we were seeking international collaboration, the coalition Government were seeking opt-outs on 130 areas of European co-operation on that very issue?

[Roger Williams]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce a political point which is far outside the scope of the debate.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Let me return it from the political point-scoring of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) to the fact that we all support the fundamentals of the report. More specifically, and more importantly, does the report not ram home the point that our constituents should be buying from their local butchers whenever possible, because they offer the greatest possibility of traceability in the food chain?

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am tempted to give a long list of local butchers in my constituency, but I will confine the list to butchers in my village. Brian George operates a very fine butcher’s shop, and slaughters the animals in the back. I am told by the Welsh Assembly Government that the hygiene standards there are excellent. I also know that it is possible to walk around other butchers’ shops in my constituency, and to be told “This piece of beef came from a bullock belonging to Mr Price of Llanafan”, or “Mr Jones of Drostre”. After the horsemeat scandal, there was a tendency to use local butchers, but, unfortunately, people now seem to be going back to supermarkets and more processed food.

My father always used to say that he would never eat any meat other than in slices, because then he could see where it came from. Once people started mincing it up, he said, there was doubt. That takes me back 30 or 40 years, but it strike me as good advice which some of our retailers could have taken during the horsemeat scandal.

Professor Elliott rightly observed that the main priority should be a “consumers first” approach. That returns me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) about the interface between the retailer and the consumer. Given that interface, the retailer should take the responsibility.

[Ian Swales]

To press my hon. Friend on one of the points I made earlier, does he feel that the legal responsibilities of the retailer are sufficiently strong and that the penalties on the retailer in this case were sufficiently punitive?

[Roger Williams]

No, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and certainly there was a lack of prosecutions. Where penalties are imposed, they tend to be of a very low order. Some of this large food fraud involves large criminals, probably acting across-country. They get involved because profit from food fraud is equal to that from drug smuggling or human trafficking, yet the chances of being caught are a lot lower, and if they are caught, the penalties are a lot lower as well.

Despite the Government’s having implemented many of the recommendations already, research carried out by Which? that tested 60 takeaway lamb curries and minced kebabs found that 24 of them had been mixed with other meats such as beef and chicken. Worryingly, seven of the samples did not contain any lamb at all. That is particularly worrying to me, given the area I represent and our dependence on the lamb trade. I was very pleased that recently our local authority prosecuted a restaurant that was advertising Welsh lamb, but in which inspectors found nothing but New Zealand lamb. That is obviously a fraud of its own kind—only on a small level, but even at that level, local authorities must take action.

Since the publication of the Elliott report, Which? has conducted another poll through Populus, and it shows that there is still concern among the public. The fieldwork for that research was conducted between 5 and 7 September, and the poll shows that, even after the publication of the Elliott review, over half of people are worried that a food fraud incident will happen again, a third are not confident that the food they buy contains exactly what is stated in the ingredients list, and, a year after the fiasco, nearly a quarter say that in the past 12 months they have changed the type of meat products they buy because they are worried about food fraud.

We welcome the publication of this report. The Government have accepted all the recommendations, but one thing that will give us cause for concern is whether the resources will be available to carry out all the recommendations, and if they are carried out, whether that will be at the expense of other good work that needs to be done in this area. In general, however, I welcome the report and the Government response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has made a similar point. I believe that the new provisions will address this; the use of the criminal law is important. The fact that the City of London fraud police were invited to carry out the examinations was illuminating, in a sense. They are very skilled in tackling business fraud and paper crime. I shall elaborate on that point later.

The second development, which I hope will be long-lasting following the horsemeat scandal, is the emergence of shorter supply chains. A number of hon. Members have already mentioned the comments of the Food and Drink Federation and the testing that has been carried out. We must not forget the cost of that testing. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that such testing will be more regular. I welcome the fact that there will be unannounced testing and auditing of food companies. Will he confirm that the testing will take place not only on the basis of risk assessment?

We can see the lengths to which the retailers are now going from the briefings that they are issuing. We must not forget that they were not necessarily in the best place. One supermarket—a leading household name—had not checked the integrity of its supply chain for months, if not years. That simply cannot be allowed to happen again. The Food and Drink Federation has flagged up certain questions for retailers. It has asked them to identify their key raw materials, asking the simple question, “Where do they come from?” It also asks them to assess how resilient their supply chain is, and how they protect their business from food fraud. This shows just how far the food industry has come.

Like other hon. Members, I was approached by Which? magazine in advance of today’s debate. I took the precaution of contacting my local authorities in North Yorkshire. I am sure it took them time and probably some expense to go through the recent testing, but I have reams of results from North Yorkshire county council, Hambleton district council, Scarborough borough council and Ryedale district council. I say to Which? that it would be helpful to know how extensive its survey was, because such surveys can be alarmist if the message goes out to consumers that our food is in any way unsafe to eat, and we have come on a long journey since the first horsemeat adulteration was found in January 2013. In welcoming this evening’s debate, it is important to accept that the Select Committee has not had the chance to consider collectively the final report and recommendations of Professor Elliott on food security, but it is very welcome that the Secretary of State and the Government have announced that they will accept all the proposals. I am delighted that the two reports on contamination of beef products and on food contamination that the Committee adopted last year form part of this evening’s debate.

[Roger Williams]

One important part of the report is where Professor Elliott says that he anticipates that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology will be keeping a watching brief on how the recommendations are put into place.

[Miss McIntosh]

Indeed. I wish to record how pleased I am that Professor Elliott has agreed in principle to come to discuss his final report findings with us.

It is a matter of regret that no prosecutions leading to conviction have been brought—one might say that the horse has already bolted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

I voiced a slight concern at the beginning of the debate that I thought the seriousness and importance of the subject might be compromised by the small number of hon. Members present, but that concern has been confounded by the quality of the contributions made. I thank all Members who took part, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for their contributions and a number of helpful interventions on the subject.

Professor Elliott set out eight pillars for the work that needs to be done. Paramount are the quality and reputation of British food and the rights of the consumer. I am sure that the House, the House’s Committees and Committees in the other place will take an interest in how the Government deliver on their commitment to accept all the report’s recommendations. We look forward to continuing that work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered food fraud.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It has certainly created a huge amount of interest across the country.

As I understand it, the purpose of the debate is to aim to encourage the Government to consider legislation that will make it illegal to sell puppies and kittens in pet shops. Local authorities already have the power to do that if the conditions of the retail outlet are poor, but this would involve an outright ban. I have considerable sympathy for that and urge the Government to consider it.

Such is the demand for cheap pedigree puppies and kittens—and, indeed, for all puppies and kittens—as presents for young people and children that unscrupulous breeders and dealers of pets can make large amounts of money without any consideration for the welfare of the animals. It is said that many of the so-called puppy farms are based in Cardigan and Carmarthenshire, and I know that the Welsh Assembly Government and local authorities in that area are working hard to bring in regulations to ensure that the conditions are suitable for the breeding of animals. It is important that we use cross-border co-operation in dealing with these issues, because many of the animals bred in Wales end up being sold in parts of England.

The subject of today’s debate, of course, is puppies and kittens, but yesterday the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took evidence on the problem of horse welfare. The same concerns were raised about the indiscriminate breeding of horses and ponies, which are expensive to keep and often abandoned when the first enthusiasm to own them disappears and the cost becomes more apparent.

The organisations promoting today’s debate make the very good point that conditions for neonatal animals are very important in ensuring that they stay healthy and have sufficient time with their mothers before weaning. Early weaning, which allows the bitches to be bred from again, means that many pups suffer from undernourishment and poor nutrition. I had a case in my constituency of an owner of Great Danes who was not breeding them indiscriminately but with careful consideration for the genetic well-being of the animals and their sale afterwards. Nevertheless, the challenges of maintaining these large animals with a litter of 12 rapidly growing pups proved too much for their management skills and the pups suffered from a number of complaints related to unhygienic conditions. In the end, the RSPCA intervened and removed the pups, which were then kept at considerable cost to the owner. I must emphasise that these were considerate and responsible owners who were not merely interested in money making, but we can imagine the conditions that persist in some puppy farms.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend’s point not emphasise that local authorities not only have an important role to play but must ensure that they inspect puppy and kitten farms?

[Roger Williams]

I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point. Another point that we should make, however, is that there are considerable limitations on the amount of resources local authorities can use for these purposes.

In Wales, compulsory microchipping is being introduced for dogs from March 2015 and I believe that the same regulations will apply in England in 2016. If we made it compulsory to microchip pups within the first few weeks of their lives, if anything happened to those pups they could be traced back to where they were bred and action could be taken against any breeders who were found to be operating in conditions that were not suitable for those pups. Any pups showing signs of malnutrition or disease could be traced to their place of birth.

I recently attended an event held by the Dogs Trust in the Royal Welsh agricultural show site in Llanelwedd in my constituency, where there was a massive dog show attracting dogs from around the country. The Dogs Trust made the point that microchipping can be done at no cost and I think that, before it becomes compulsory, all responsible dog owners should have their dogs microchipped.

Buying a pup is a very serious business that should not be undertaken lightly. If someone buys a horse, for instance, they employ a vet to examine the animal and ensure that it is fit and healthy. It would be very good if that were replicated during the purchasing of puppies and kittens. I do not want to make pet ownership too over-burdened with regulation and bureaucracy, but, nevertheless, people should be educated about the responsibilities of making such purchases. Pets are very demanding in terms of the time that is necessary to look after them properly, and feeding them and maintaining their health through veterinary care is very expensive. I get a lot of letters from constituents who are very concerned about the costs of veterinary treatment. Tightening up the regulation on the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens is very important and I support that, but I also commend the work that charities do in emphasising the importance of taking decisions on pet ownership very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and that is certainly something I will be looking at and discussing with my junior Ministers.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

In 2012 the Agri-food and Drink Export Forum said that it would report on the progress it was making. The organisation is doing good work, so will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made and when we will get the result in report form?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, has already had a meeting with the organisation. Like my predecessor, I am passionate about increasing our food exports, as that is very important, and I look forward to working on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

Let us be absolutely clear: we are asking Natural England, which is a proper expert body, to assess how the culls are going and look at what we can do in future. We must use every tool in our toolbox to address this threat to our beef and dairy industries.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

T4. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. She has already demonstrated her commitment to UK food, but does she agree that large supermarkets, such as Tesco, should be encouraged to stock in-season products, such as British lamb, rather than discount New Zealand lamb, during our peak production period?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree that British beef and lamb are fantastic products, as is British pork—as an East Anglian MP, I obviously do a lot to promote British pork. I understand that Tesco has entered into a two-year contract with 200 British lamb farmers to help supply British lamb, but I think that we can do more to encourage not only supermarkets to offer local, seasonal food, but people to consume it. That will help our environment and our economy.

Common Agricultural Policy

Roger Williams Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I, too, draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding agriculture.

The debate tonight is on the CAP in England, and my farm is in Wales so it is not covered, but the common agricultural policy and the way it is delivered in the United Kingdom have implications for all the devolved nations as well. The important word is “common”. While the UK farmers continue to compete within the European single market, we need a common policy. It is important that we remain within the single market: 40% of all lamb produced in the UK is exported. Although we welcome some of that lamb going to the middle east, and some, we hope, to China in the future and perhaps even to the United States, the bulk of the lamb goes to the continent.

We have a single market there, a market that is open for every second of every minute of every hour of every day throughout the whole year. I can remember when we did not know whether that market was open or not. We could take lambs to market and one day they were worth £10 less because the market was closed; the next day they were worth £10 more because the market suddenly opened. That was no way to do business.

The original purpose of the common agricultural policy was to lift incomes in rural areas, and that is as important now as it was then; incomes in rural areas are still lower than in urban areas. A reduction in the European Union budget naturally resulted in lower pillar one and pillar two allocations. I am particularly concerned about upland areas, where incomes are very low. Hardly any farm businesses would show a profit without the single farm payment, and those that did would generate no cash for investment, yet in his written evidence about food security to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), said:

“Farm subsidies can allow inefficient farmers to continue to operate a farm rather than exit the industry.”

Giving oral evidence to the Committee, he said:

“we can support farming better through Pillar 2”.

I can tell him that that causes considerable apprehension in farming communities, particularly in the uplands.

The family farm remains the foundation of the rural community and the rural economy. Money received by farmers gets recycled among many local businesses—garages, shops and other tradespeople. The single farm payment enables farmers to invest, become more efficient, and be more market-facing. It gives farming businesses the resilience to come through periods of poor weather when outputs are reduced and costs soar, as in spring 2013. Any suggestion of moving away from direct payments would devastate many rural areas, break down the cohesion of rural communities, and have a drastic effect on traditional production chains and, indeed, total food production.

I turn to the thorny issue of voluntary modulation, which turned into an almighty row between farming organisations and environmentally focused charities—and one can understand why. Those on both sides of the argument were going to receive less money. Pillar one was reduced by 2.7%, and pillar two by 5.5%. One might ask why there is not this row in other countries. Only five other countries of the 27 in the European Union even engage in voluntary modulation at all, and two do it in the reverse order, moving money from pillar two to pillar one. The Flanders area of Belgium modulates by 5.5%, Germany by 4.5%, France by 3.3%, Latvia by 7.4%—we have to remember that it had a 50% increase in its pillar two allocation—and the Netherlands by 2.5%.

Of course, as we have heard, in England the modulation is 12%, probably rising to 15% in 2018. In Wales, there is 15% modulation. In Scotland I believe it is 9.5%, and it is zero in Ireland. Why is the UK such an exception to all this? The answer probably lies in the UK’s pillar two allocation. The UK receives €2.3 billion for pillar two in this financial period, whereas Poland receives €9.7 billion, Italy €9.2 billion, France €8.8 billion, Spain €7.3 billion, and Germany €3.3 billion. Why does the UK have such a poor allocation for pillar two? I will not go into the suggested reasons, but there is common cause to be made. The farming unions could combine with the environmental charities to review our pillar two allocation fundamentally, which would be good for farmers, the environment, rural communities and the UK as a whole. Our pillar two allocation is low, which I do not understand. I cannot find any reason why we have such a poor allocation. Increasing the allocation would be good for our farming community, but it would be good for our environment, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Government have consistently raised concerns about other member states not complying with the rules on battery cages that were introduced two years ago. It is fair to say that the Commission has taken this matter seriously and has brought some cases against some member states in the European Court of Justice. We continue to maintain pressure on the Commission, but I believe it takes the matter seriously and is taking the appropriate action.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Minister will be aware of the drastic reduction in farm-gate beef prices and the effect that has had on confidence in the sector. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that reduction has taken place? What is he doing to find other markets that will encourage an increase?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is one of the key issues being raised with Ministers as we go around agricultural shows. We will have a summit on the matter before the summer recess. A number of factors are driving this: it is partly due to changes in global commodity prices, but it is also clear that in some cases supermarkets are taking a larger margin than before. Regarding solutions, we are keen to open new export markets for British beef so that farmers can get a better price. We are also keen to ensure that there is fair contracting between farmers and processors, and between processors and retailers.

Bovine TB

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We are very clear in the document. The hon. Gentleman should read the strategy, as there is a significant amount of information in it, including references to where we have got advice from.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been following the development of vaccines for badgers and cattle and I commend the Secretary of State on continuing that work, but he knows that a test that could identify diseased badgers so we could eliminate them and vaccinate the healthy badgers would really take us forward. Can he tell the House what progress is being made on those matters?

[Mr Paterson]

I think my hon. Friend and I will be in total agreement that it would be a huge change in the whole debate if we could establish some form of polymerase chain reaction technology using DNA where we could identify and differentiate diseased and healthy cattle and, above all, diseased and healthy badgers. We are pressing on with that—we have done a lot of work with Warwick university—because I do think this would change the whole debate, and if we could target culling, it would be so much better and so much quicker and make it more effective.

Elliott Review and Food Crime

Roger Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Laura Sandys]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he is doing extremely important work on the whole issue of food poverty. In my constituency, we have certain areas where accommodation does not have cookers. Families are supplied with microwaves, which confines them to buying expensive food that is frequently not of the greatest quality. That does not allow families to be resilient, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) would like everyone to be. We have to look at the overall system; that is the crucial point. We need a system-based approach and policy that understands the food system in its totality.

On the early warning signs of food crime, we have to look at where the disconnects happen. We had rising commodity prices, but food prices were rising only a little in the shops, so something had to give. Different products were substituted and food crime entered the system. I know that the Minister is concerned about food security, but I hope it is now of much greater importance to DEFRA as a whole, because trust, food integrity and access to resources are all part of the wider security nexus. I hope that food security has moved up the agenda. The National Security Council regard it as important: food security is one of its nine key priorities.

Food crime is not going away. In 2007, the Food Standards Agency recorded 49 cases of food fraud, and by 2013 there were 1,500 cases. While horsemeat has been a real problem, other forms of food crime have come to the FSA’s attention: dyes in children’s sweets, illegal and toxic vodka and dangerous health substitutes that amplify diabetes. Our system in this country is particularly vulnerable because we import a lot and have long supply chains.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and wish I could stay a little longer. She outlined different forms of food crime. One form that I am particularly interested in is the importing of bush meat into this country, particularly from west Africa. Given the outbreak of the Ebola virus, should the Government not make even more effort to ensure that that food does not come into the country?

[Laura Sandys]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; that is absolutely crucial. I do not believe that we have looked at our supply chains with vulnerability in mind. We have assumed, possibly rightly, that we have a very safe food system in this country, but in certain instances we might have devolved too much policy to the manufacturers, producers and retailers. The Government need to claim some of that policy back and to consider the strategic risks that the system faces.

Returning to the analysis of the crime, Europol states that drug gangs have now moved into food fraud. There is a lot of money in the business of fake, cheap food and drink; Europol says that fake food is a major new part of the underground economy. We will therefore start to see more of this. I am sure that the Minister will assure us that DEFRA and the FSA will take the matter extremely seriously. The drugs trade appears to be less profitable than food crime, and the risks are much lower. The penalties are fines that are merely petty cash or operating costs for criminals. With authorities having downgraded their investigative capacity, criminals are even less likely to be caught. We have a fantastic food system and fantastic food quality in this country, but we are a particularly attractive and vulnerable market because of our efficient but very long supply chains. Looking at investigative powers, Holland has 111 staff dedicated to food crime, but I do not believe that this country has any, so we need to upgrade our investigative capacity.

There are important questions about our food system and our expectations of the food sector. Does DEFRA believe that our cheap food system—a business model that is designed around cheap food—is not vulnerable to food crime as food prices rise globally? Has the Minister met food companies to discuss their assessment of vulnerabilities? Have they communicated to the Minister their internal reports on the horsemeat scandal? Some say that the reports were not published because some of the findings about their ability to trace the inputs into food manufacturing were so shocking. Are supermarkets and manufacturers happy to be transparent about their supply chains and prepared to be open about the increased risks of crime? If they co-operate and we work collectively, traceability and enforcement can work together, rather than as two separate silos.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.

I do not recollect storming out of anywhere. We have been punctilious in keeping Parliament informed through regular statements, and the issue comes up regularly at questions. The last vote, with a majority of 61, very clearly endorsed our strategy, which is very wide and encompasses other actions. [Interruption.] The last vote on a substantive motion showed considerable support, with a majority of 61, for our strategy. The hon. Gentleman has got to get beyond the issue of culls. Our strategy encompasses vaccination of both species, significant changes to our cattle movement regime and tighter biosecurity. He should concentrate on the whole strategy, which was endorsed in Parliament by 61 votes.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s using all means at his disposal to control the disease. One of those is the polymerase chain reaction test, which will be able to identify infected live badgers and the setts in which they live. Will he ensure that all the available resources go into promoting that test, which could have a role in controlling bovine TB?

Badger Cull

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

This is the “badgers moving the goalposts” argument, which repeatedly comes back to haunt this debate. The important thing is to have accurate numbers, not least because we do not want to break the Bern convention, and therefore the law, in terms of taking the risk of eradicating an entire species.

On four occasions, the RBCT conducted non-simultaneous culls—this comes back to the point about the short period of time, as they went on over a prolonged period. It was found—the evidence is there—that there was an increase in the proportion of badgers infected, over and above the background norm of the increase in numbers infected by the proactive culling.

In 2010, DEFRA’s science advisory council said:

“There is little useful data on the issue of what time period should be considered as ‘simultaneous’. The Group advised that if culling was carried out in a period of up to 6 weeks (although preferably less), that is likely to reduce the adverse effects of non-simultaneous culling; this advice is based on opinion and not on evidence. The longer the period that culling is carried out in, the less confident one can be that the deleterious effects seen with non-simultaneous culling as carried out in the RBCT will be minimized.”

That is from DEFRA’s own science advisory council. It is absolutely clear that the pilot culls took a fairly significant risk in planning to meet the six-week target. The fact that they failed comprehensively to meet that target supports the claim in the independent expert panel report that the pilot culls were ineffective; they took 63 and 77 nights respectively. Remember that the randomised badger culling trial found that to maximise impact, a cull should take place over eight to 11 nights.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Smith]

I will give way just one more time, because a lot of people want to speak.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She said that the randomised badger culling trials occurred over 10 to 11 days, but of course they failed miserably to reduce the number of badgers in a way that met their objective.

[Angela Smith]

The reactive culling in the RBCT did fail. That is not the point. I am talking about proactive culling, which is best carried out over eight to 11 days. Reactive culling is when one kills the badgers in a small area—a hot spot—and does not go back again. The proactive culling is done over a bigger area—that is the important point—annually. It is a much more scientific approach to culling. Reactive culling does not work at all; in fact, it makes the problem a lot worse.

The 70% figure, which is an average, is based on proactive culling. It was demonstrated in the RBCT that it did deliver reductions in cattle TB incidence in the culling zone on a gradual basis. There was, however, a rapid but diminishing increase outside the zone. That is where the 16% figure in the RBCT report comes from. It is often not reported, however, that the 16% figure was based on a scenario that was more optimistic about the potential beneficial impact of culling overall. In fact, the average reduction over nine years was 12%. That is why the Independent Study Group on Cattle TB said that culling could not deliver any meaningful reduction in bovine TB. That is the key point.

Reactive culling reduced badger density by 30% and elevated cattle TB; that is the point that I was making earlier. The problem is that it is not known scientifically where between 30% and 70% removal an effect on TB is achieved, hence the importance of the 70% target. Scientifically, it is the only target that one can use to measure effectiveness.

In summary, the requirement to kill at least 70% of local badgers within six weeks was not an arbitrary target. It was a scientifically driven target. As I have said, the six-week target was set because prolonged culling over more than 12 nights further elevates TB in badgers and is expected to undermine any benefits for cattle TB control. In terms of both the length of the culling period and the targets for numbers killed, the pilot culls failed comprehensively. That prompts questions about the future of culling. If we are to go ahead with more culling, Ministers have to answer this key point: killing effectively, over less than six weeks, will require far more marksmen and far greater resources, so that we can do the work simultaneously. One of the key lessons to be learned from the pilot culls is that we would need much greater resources to do the job, and I am not convinced that taxpayers are prepared to pay for that kind of resource.

It was found in the end that the pilot culling had to make use of cage trapping in addition to free-shooting. That points to the need for much greater resources. If we include policing in the costs, we are looking at more than £4,000 per badger shot in the pilot culls. On the alternative, vaccination costs £2,250 per square kilometre covered. When looking at cage trapping, and whether to vaccinate or cull, we have to remember that vaccination is much cheaper, partly because policing costs are removed from the equation, but also because with vaccination there is no need to dispose of the carcases of badgers culled. We all know that there is a massive army of volunteers ready to help the Government conduct the vaccination. In fact, there is already an initiative to deliver vaccination on a wider scale.

I quickly want to refer to the other important part of the alternative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I think those who called for this debate were anticipating, or hoping, that the IEP report would be out by now, as it should have been. That would at least have ensured that the information was already in the public domain and had not been disputed by the many people who will have seen it. I think we can make a number of reasonable assumptions about the figures in the report regarding the lack of effectiveness of the two pilot culls. We have a significant amount of evidence to go on—and it will be found to be sound—that those projects failed to achieve even a 50% cull of badgers, even in the Somerset area where it is considered to have gone slightly better than in Gloucestershire. In these unfortunate circumstances, we have to move forward on the basis of the information that is currently in the public domain.

I wish to conclude my remarks with a couple of straightforward points. First, a number of people have alighted on a report from DEFRA this week that has highlighted the fairly significant fall in TB reactors in the herd across the country—down from 37,734 in the period until December 2012 to 32,620 last year. That has happened before the impact of the pilot culls or anything else can be taken into account, which might mean that a lot of the other measures that this Government and the previous Government have engaged in are beginning to show some effects. That cannot be ignored.

Secondly, I want to refer to the collective research that was brought together by Professor James Wood at Cambridge about a year ago. I do not have the document with me, but it showed that even in the herds that had been given the all-clear after a reactor, up to 25% continued to have latent TB within them. In this debate we are concentrating significantly on vaccinating rather than killing the badger population, but we should be concentrating a great deal more on biosecurity measures and ways in which we can bear down on the latent disease that still remains in the United Kingdom livestock industry. Even though it has been given the all-clear—

[Roger Williams]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

I will, but I am probably testing the patience of others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

I respect my hon. Friend’s views on these matters, but does he agree that however poor the tuberculin skin test is, it has been effective in reducing TB in previous times?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr George, it is not my patience you will be testing; it is that of your colleagues who are patiently waiting to speak. For the third time, I remind Members that they must speak for eight to nine minutes, including interventions. Mr George, you have been speaking for 11 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest. I am responsible for some cattle in Wales and although this debate refers to England it is appropriate that I declare that interest.

In a few months I will no longer have an interest to declare because we have decided not to keep cattle any more, partly as a result of the problems we face with TB in cattle. More grassland will be therefore ploughed up and the countryside will be less attractive. With the loss of biodiversity, the countryside will be able to support fewer species. That is a shame, and is just one effect of this country not being able to get a grip and reduce, then eliminate, this disease.

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing it. It is vital that, in our shared determination to beat this terrible disease, we constantly scrutinise the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the development of policy. I am sure the House shares my determination to bring down the incidence of TB in our national beef and dairy herds. It is a great burden on our cattle farmers, and an avoidable expense to the Government and the taxpayer. It is also a possible risk to human health, but I do no think I will have time to go into that this afternoon.

The tragedy is that bovine TB was virtually eliminated in the United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s, although there were persistent outbreaks in the south-west. That success was due to the tuberculin skin test. When the disease began to increase and spread from the south-west, it was reasonably believed that it could again be controlled by means of the skin test, perhaps used more frequently. Unfortunately, that was not the case. There is now a wildlife reservoir that did not exist in the 1950s and 1960s. The scenario is different, and therefore different policies are needed to prevent the ever-increasing spread of the disease.

Although the epidemiology of TB, whether in cattle or in human beings, is not readily understandable—for instance, infected cattle kept in sheds throughout the winter have not passed on the infection to other cattle with which they have been in close contact—it is sometimes useful to draw parallels between different species. Bronllys hospital, in my constituency, is now a community hospital that is much valued by the people whom it serves, but originally it was the TB sanatorium for the people of south Wales. It was built in my constituency because we have a sunny and healthy climate. The treatment in the hospital of TB before antibiotics consisted of radical surgery, fresh air, sunshine and good food. The success of the eradication, or near-eradication, of TB in humans has been due to the use of antibiotics, the use of a vaccine, the pasteurisation of milk—which often carried the organism—improvements in housing and diet, and, nowadays, health checks for people entering the country,

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is very interesting. Is he going to say anything about the effects of the vaccine when it was used in Wales? I referred to Scotland earlier, but I meant to say Wales.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I shall come to the issue he has raised in a moment.

We would not have eradicated TB in human beings if we had relied on the vaccine alone, and indeed we will not eradicate it in cattle if we rely on the vaccine alone. A range of tools must be used if we are to be successful. There is the tuberculin skin test, there is biosecurity, there is the restriction of cattle movements, and now there is vaccination. There is also badger culling in specific, focused areas where the incidence of the disease is high. I do not underestimate the contribution that a badger vaccine could make to the control of TB in cattle, but it cannot be relied on to achieve it on its own.

The problem is that we have no scientific evidence that the Bacille de Calmette et Guérin, or BCG—which was developed in the 1920s, and has not been developed further—can prevent TB in cattle. We know that it is 70% effective in providing immunity in badgers, although of course it is not effective if the badgers are already infected, but no scientific evidence has been produced to demonstrate that it reduces infection in cattle in the field.

The pilot culls are planned to continue for four years. I believe that they should continue, and that lessons should be learnt from the report that we expect to be published in the next few weeks. We should bear it in mind that the randomised badger cull trials failed to meet the cull targets—which is the point I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for whom I have high regard—but the cull trials did result in a reduced incidence of TB in cattle herds, so there is some good news.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that whatever we think about the issue of culling, there has to be huge concern about the failure to meet DEFRA’s own targets on humaneness? Surely we cannot continue to extend this culling regime while this inhumaneness continues?

[Roger Williams]

We await the report on that. We have had only leaked evidence and I have heard less critical interpretation of the statistics.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Roger Williams]

I will not give way as I have almost used up my time allowance.

Continuing results from the RBCTs show continuing benefits from proactive culling many years after the conclusion of the trials. The TB situation continues to improve in New Zealand and Australia. Improvements are also evident in southern Ireland where, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge might like to note, a reactive cull has been used. Surprisingly, those areas that used reactive culling in the RBCTs now show improvements compared with the survey areas. Perhaps we should re-examine the use of reactive culling.

More support for culling could be generated if we had a better test for TB in live badgers. The good news is that the polymerase chain reaction test is making progress and hopefully by next year we will have a conclusive test. I am sure that the culling of infected setts, as identified by PCR tests, and the protecting of healthy setts would be supported. I ask the Minister whether there is any advance on those tests.

I am told that badgers culled in the pilots vary in weight from 6.5 kg to 22 kg. Evidence of disease in the lightest badgers probably implies that they would not survive the winter and would die in considerable distress of starvation, hyperthermia and disease. I have not heard anything today that would lead me to believe that the BCG vaccine alone will lead to an elimination of disease in the wildlife reservoir. I believe a cull is also needed as part of a wide-ranging policy, and for that reason I cannot support this motion.