Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Members are being very inventive in their use of questions today. This is a real issue: many of us find it frustrating that slurry disposal is dictated by date rather than good husbandry practice. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I have extended the period for spreading slurry in England to the greatest extent I can within the regulations. I cannot do more than that, but we are working with the industry to find the best possible ways of helping farmers to dispose of slurry, which they cannot currently spread on wet fields.

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

Long-term successful farmers always make animal welfare and nutrition top priorities. Does the Minister agree that at the heart of all successful and profitable farming lies a commitment to animal welfare and that any system should be judged against that principle?

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A good stockman recognises that the welfare of the animals under his or her control is of paramount importance. No one can farm well if they ignore the welfare of animals. As far as we are concerned, maintaining the highest possible welfare standards—as well as maintaining the pressure on the European Union more widely to adopt them—is a top priority.

National Park Authorities (Elections)

Roger Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Benton. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of accountability in relation to Britain’s national parks. The matter is raised with me almost daily by local businesses and residents of the Lake district and the Cumbrian part of the Yorkshire dales, not because local people are desperate for more elections or because we are constitutional obsessives but because decisions made by people who are not accountable to those affected tend to be bad decisions.

As a result, businesses are under unnecessary pressure because they cannot expand, farmers are struggling because they cannot diversify, and local people, especially young people, are leaving our communities never to return because of the lack of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the rise in second home ownership has gone unchecked in recent years. A conservative estimate is that one in six properties is now a second home owned by folks wealthy enough to have a property in a national park that they occasionally visit, while locals who are desperate to stay are forced to leave.

That said, Britain’s national parks are stunning countryside protected for the nation. The 1945 to 1951 Attlee Labour Government spent a good six years implementing Liberal policies, among which was the establishment in 1951 of the national parks, including both the Lakes and the Dales. That was good legislation; it was a wise and visionary move. The motivation behind the Act was to preserve Britain’s most spectacular landscape and its environment and to promote the heritage of our national parks for the benefit of all the people of Britain. There was a sense that the national parks were the lungs of Britain’s towns and cities, and that they therefore belonged to the whole country, not just to those who lived, worked or indeed owned property or land there.

Today, those of us who are blessed to call the Lakes or any other national park home are proud to live in such beautiful places. We embrace the fact that our area is cherished by the nation. We are determined to be stewards of our countryside and to share it with all comers. The Lake district has 16 million visitors a year, the tourism economy of Cumbria is worth roughly £3 billion a year and, outside London, the Lake district is Britain’s most important attack brand for overseas tourism, drawing in millions of tourists every year, many of whom then visit other, less famous parts of Britain, adding hugely to the economy of the whole country.

It is vital for our environment, for biodiversity, for our tourism economy and for our fight against climate change that our national parks are protected, and it is vital for our nation’s heritage and for our sense of collective ownership that that heritage is propagated and that decisions taken about our national parks should be taken on behalf of the UK-wide community well as the local community.

I contend that the evidence of recent years shows that the local community’s interests are most likely to be overlooked when the balance of considerations is made. We in Westmorland and Lonsdale are blessed with two national parks: within the constituency are the most populated part of the Yorkshire dales, including Sedbergh, Dent and Garsdale, and the most populated part of the Lake district, including Ambleside, Grasmere, Windermere, Bowness, Hawkshead, Coniston and the Langdales, to name a few. For those towns and villages, the national park acts in many ways like the local authority: it decides on planning, environmental matters, provision of housing, car parking prices, tourist information and a range of other services.

Although I am talking about beautiful countryside, I am not talking about empty spaces. The Lake District is Britain’s most populous national park: 45,000 people live within it, and thousands more who live near it make their living there. The national park boards act almost identically to local district or county councils. There are 22 members on the Lake District national park board and 22 on the Yorkshire Dales national park board. Of those, six are appointed by the Secretary of State and by local district or county councils. A further four are appointed by parish councils.

The idea is that local council appointments tick the box when it comes to demonstrating that local people have a voice, but it is worth pointing out that many local authority representatives see themselves, understandably, as there to represent their local authority’s institutional interests rather than the interests of residents. To underline that point, many of those local authority representatives do not actually live in or represent wards in the national parks. Also, many parish councils that nominate members of national park boards tend be made up of people who, although able, decent and committed, became members of their parish council without being elected, owing to a lack of demand to take up parish council places.

That prompts the question whether there would be any interest in or demand for elections to the national park boards. Hon. Members might be interested to know that South Lakeland had the highest electoral turnout in the country in the police and crime commissioner elections on 15 November, but even then we managed only 23%. Perhaps that underlines the public’s antipathy to those elections. I suspect that one reason why the turnout was so low is that people felt that the post should not be politicised, and that we already have too many elections.

Maybe this is not the best time to be asking the Government—or, more important, local residents—to consider holding more elections, but let us look at it this way: we would not tolerate a district or county council making decisions about housing, planning, economic development, environment and tourism without its members being elected by the residents who had to live with those decisions. In fact we would be outraged, yet to the people who live and work within them, our national parks are effectively unelected and unaccountable local authorities.

That does not mean, however, that the national parks do a dreadful job. In fact, they do a good job. They protect our world-class landscape and environmental heritage to the extent that the lakes are potentially a world heritage site. They have done outstanding work, enhancing biodiversity in the Howgills and the Yorkshire dales, for example. They have performed an almost miraculous clean-up operation in respect of water quality in many of our lakes. They have made massive strides in reducing carbon emissions through improved cycle routes and rail integration. But they make silly decisions—for example, about aggressive car park ticketing prices in Hawkshead and Ambleside, and they choose to develop their main visitor centre at Brockhole in ways that are almost designed to damage local hotels. They throw out exciting, completely appropriate commercial ventures, such as the Honister zip wire, but they put pressure on farmers to reduce their livestock numbers, forcing many of them to abandon farming altogether. I suspect that they do such things because too often they do not listen to what local businesses, residents and farmers want.

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

My hon. Friend sets out the importance of national parks and some of the failings. Does he agree that experience in the Scottish national parks, which have had elected members since their formation, proves that the elections can be well contested and of great interest to local people?

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is true. I will mention the Scottish example in a moment. The elections in the Scottish national parks have engaged people and made them take the national parks seriously, providing a sense of ownership rather than a sense that this is a national thing deposited upon them.

It is important that our national park boards are chosen by local people, not simply chosen by others, so that a strand of legitimacy supports their decision making. Of course, that is not to say that people who are elected will make perfect decisions. We hon. Members present are proud to be elected to this place, but there are occasions when we do not get things perfectly right. Decisions made by people who are accountable will tend to be better, because those people have had to listen to those who have put them where they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate. I do not know if any other hon. Members have two national parks in their constituency, but my hon. Friend certainly brings with him real authority on this subject. From contact that he has with me over the past two and a half years, both by letter and through parliamentary questions and other means, I know the extent of his interest in this important subject. I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to the debate.

The Government are committed to breaking down the perceived barriers between local communities and those making decisions on their behalf. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we have introduced directly elected police commissioners. There may be some doubt about the glee with which the electorate crammed themselves into the polling booths to elect them, but I feel sure that things will change over time. We also have directly elected mayors, and we have made other changes to increase local accountability. My hon. Friend is right to say that the issues we are debating today are political, as is the case with policing. They are matters of great concern to our constituents and they are vital to people in such areas who know and care about these landscapes.

Through the Localism Act 2011, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made changes to give more power directly to communities and individuals so that they can challenge local authorities and take over and run the community services that are so vital. This is important to both parties in this coalition Government.

This is a timely debate, as my ministerial colleagues and I are actively considering the results of our consultations on the issue. That is why I should address the points in detail. I should say something about the importance of national parks to our country and this Government. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in 1936 the then Standing Committee on National Parks lobbied the Government for measures to protect and allow access to the countryside for the benefit of the nation. That pre-war world of 1936 might seem a long time ago, and many aspects of our world are unrecognisable from that time, but some constants remain, one of which is what the national parks can offer us. We need a sense of challenge in our lives just as much our forebears did, and we need the uplift that comes from contact with nature, as they did. The parks style themselves as Britain’s breathing spaces, which is exactly what they are for their more than 50 million visitors a year from home and abroad. That is of enormous benefit to our society. Those visitors help to support more than 22,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small or medium-sized enterprises.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is absolutely right to praise the leadership of his local national parks. Whether we are talking about a parish in our constituencies or a large area such as that covered by the national parks that he knows so well, there will be issues on which there is a divergence of opinion. What might seem good to one of us might not seem so good to another, especially when dealing with something such as planning. He was right to allude to the complexity of these issues at times and to the fact that many good things that are done are not always appreciated by everyone.

The national parks continue to deliver on their two core purposes: to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those national parks by the public. The means we use have, of course, changed over time, and they may change again. For the first 40 years of their lives, national parks were essentially managed by local government.

[Roger Williams]

The Minister sets out the two purposes of the national parks, but the legislation also includes a duty to take into account the economic and social needs of the communities that the parks serve. Surely at the heart of this demand for democracy is a better understanding of those issues.

[Richard Benyon]

I will come on to talk about that, but it is important that the three legs of the stool of sustainability are considered at every stage: environmental, yes; economic, absolutely; as well, of course, as the social dimension the parks give to their inhabitants and visitors. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

To turn to the main issue of the debate, the coalition’s programme for government said:

“We will review the governance arrangements of National Parks in order to increase local accountability.”

That commitment was honoured with a public consultation that ran from 9 November 2010 until 1 February 2011. The question of accountability and transparency was central to the consultation. The Government take seriously the improvement of the transparency of decision making and an increase in the accountability of national park authorities. We have made it clear that variety between authorities is possible, which would allow that governance to reflect better the national parks’ individual circumstances and histories as part of our commitment to decentralisation and localism.

Since the original legislation was enacted in 1995, there have been calls for some members of park authorities to be directly elected, which now already happens in the Scottish national parks authorities, as my hon. Friends suggested. I said in September 2011 that I had concluded that the time had come for us to explore that option more thoroughly in England, so I consulted on legislation that would allow for the possibility of elections to the national park authorities and the Broads Authority. Initially, we proposed to apply new legislation on a pilot basis in two parks, namely the New Forest—as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned—and the Peak District. They provide different contexts in which to assess the effect of directly elected members.

First, I should be clear that although national parks cover some 9% of the country, have a population of more than 320,000 people, encompass in excess of 700 local authorities and parish councils and handle some 9,500 planning cases each year, fewer than 170 responses were received on the question of direct elections, which is a staggeringly low figure. Fewer than 40 of those responses came from individual members of the public. While a majority of responses were generally in favour, there was no clear consensus, even between parks, that direct elections were the answer to improving local accountability. As the Deputy Prime Minister recently made clear, opinion is divided.

Secondly, while much is made of the possible benefits of introducing some elected members into the national park authorities, views are divided and some practicalities need to be taken into account. The legislation required to implement direct elections would be significant, so we would need to identify a suitable opportunity in the parliamentary timetable. I must share with hon. Members the fact that such legislation would not only create a significant call on the time of the House but, as we face the reality of the financial situation, we would be bound to ask if this would really be a good use of public money. Initial estimates indicate that the costs of the proposal could run into many hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, although obviously there would be a full cost assessment nearer the time.

Thirdly, the consultation proposed holding pilot elections in the New Forest and Peak District national parks during May 2013. Given that we have not yet secured the required legislation, those pilots obviously will not go ahead on time. It is also clear that we cannot and should not commit to any wider programme of direct elections without piloting so that we can fully understanding what impact, if any, the changes would have on the performance of the national parks in question.

Finally, direct elections are not the only mechanism for improving accountability and openness, and some of the suggestions from the governance review are already being taken forward by individual parks. Many avenues could be explored and, in conjunction with the park authorities, we will continue to look at what can be achieved. It is also worth making the point that local authority members of a national park authority are elected members of the local authority, so they are already held accountable through the ballot box, although not to the satisfaction of some. Similarly, parish council members are sometimes elected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point, and I can only give my commitment that although we remain in favour of direct elections, we must ensure that we achieve that in the necessary time scale and with the resources we have.

It is interesting that Scottish national parks have all-postal ballot elections. When I raise potential complications, it sounds as though I am being negative, but I assure my hon. Friends that I am not. However, we need to mention the fact that there is concern about such elections.

[Roger Williams]

When I had the pleasure and privilege of going over to monitor the US elections, I was surprised to find that some US states have wholly postal ballots to elect their President.

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend may like to share his thoughts with colleagues in the Cabinet Office, who are looking at greater participation in elections. After what happened two weeks ago, I want more participation in local elections, and if we could get more people voting by post, that would be good.

I was delighted to hear that the Peak District magazine Park Life recently published the names, photographs and telephone numbers of all members of that authority. That is the start of real transparency. It does not happen in every national park authority, so we must press them to look at such innovations.

In an ideal world, I would like to devolve decisions to national parks if they can prove that there is local demand, and we can introduce enabling legislation that allows them to take that forward and let a thousand flowers bloom. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that I will keep him in touch with any progress and ensure that what we are doing is affordable for the resources in my Department, feasible in terms of the primary legislation that I am convinced that we will have to introduce, and workable locally. I assure him that the Government remain in favour—

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Roger Williams Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He makes his point forcefully.

I believe that the threat to supermarkets of recommendations and requirements to publish details will be enough to drive cultural change. Hon. Members should note that imposing a financial penalty would confer a full merits right of appeal, which would potentially be costly and time-intensive for all parties. It is important that the adjudicator is able to focus on investigations, rather than being distracted by appeals. I am sure that all constituency Members recognise that where there are appeals procedures, such as in planning, they tend to be used. We do not want the groceries code adjudicator to be tied up in appeal after appeal, but want them to be able to get on with their investigations. That is why we think that it is helpful to proceed with the range of sanctions in the Bill.

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

I welcome the Bill’s focus on the role of the adjudicator in enforcing the groceries code. If the adjudicator, in carrying out that work, came across evidence of serious criminal offences, for example in the field of competition or human trafficking, it would surely be up to them to refer that evidence to the appropriate authorities.

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. Morally, it is incumbent on anyone who comes across evidence of appalling crimes, such as human trafficking, to ensure that it is presented to the appropriate authorities so that they can take action.

Even without fines, there are financial consequences for retailers who breach the code. There may be internal costs of complying with an investigation, such as the cost of sending senior executives to give evidence to the adjudicator. The adjudicator will have the ability to make a retailer who has breached the code pay the costs of the investigation. It is also our intention that the retailers who cause the adjudicator the most trouble should pay a greater share of the levy. Taken together, those factors will reward good behaviour and discourage non-compliance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on this issue. As many Members have rightly said, he has been a long and steadfast campaigner for a supermarket ombudsman—I will call it an ombudsman in my remarks, because I think that would have been the correct title.

I also pay tribute to Members of the previous Parliament who sponsored and helped me with my private Member’s Bill. The legislation that I put through Second Reading and Committee was supported by Members not only from the larger parties, but from some of the smaller parties and across the United Kingdom. Support came from the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, and from the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Members from the larger parties. The Bill had cross-UK as well as cross-party support, which was important when taking it forward. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you took an interest in that Bill—I will refer to that shortly when you are not being disturbed. You may recall, however, that you actually sat on the Bill’s one Committee sitting. I do not know whether it was a record, but I managed to get that private Member’s Bill through in one Committee sitting with almost total agreement.

As right hon. and hon. Members will know, private Member’s Bills are an important vehicle and people become extremely popular when they are drawn in the top 10 in the ballot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will testify, one receives hundreds if not thousands of letters and e-mails—he has done it twice so he will speak from experience. People probably become more popular than if they go out to the jungles of Australia, so Members should persevere and get into the ballot for a private Member’s Bill if at all possible.

I welcome the Bill—it would be churlish not to, having promoted a private Member’s Bill the main tenets of which are still contained in the Bill under discussion. However, as the hon. Member for St Ives said, there was not a lot of enthusiasm for this measure when I successfully won that ballot. In fact, I was popular not just with outside organisations that wanted me to take legislation forward, but with those in the Whips Office who had a number of Bills they wanted me to promote. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have never done anything the conventional way in this House—or, indeed, in my life—so I resisted the charm of the Whips Office at the time, and pursued this legislation because I thought it was the right thing to do. It brought together a broad coalition of farmers, suppliers, non-governmental organisations and many farming unions, and I pay tribute to the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union in Scotland and England for their work. It has been difficult for any party to ignore this issue, and each of the larger parties put this legislation in their manifestos.

This Bill has been a long time coming. I remember gathering support from other parties when I was pursuing this legislation through Parliament, and there was a division in each party between spokespeople from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who were keen for the Bill to proceed, and those from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who were less keen to get it through—that is a nice way of putting it. When we were able to get all parties to concentrate their efforts on the Bill, they started to bid for who would take the legislation through Parliament the quickest once there was an election. I remember Conservative agriculture spokespersons of the time going to fairs, which all hon. Members go to in their constituencies, and saying that a supermarket ombudsman would be a priority for the next Conservative Government. I know they are in coalition, but I see no reason why the Bill was not introduced much sooner—all parties agree and there is a broad coalition of support.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was a very good supporter of my private Member’s Bill and he is now a supporter of the Bill. If he were less conventional than he is, and if he, like me, was not a Minister, he would probably say, “I agree the Bill needs more teeth. I agree we need fines in the Bill.” He will not say that now—possibly for good reasons—but I see no good reason for not including fines in the Bill.

That is the argument I want to develop. Many groups have lobbied for fines to be included. Had the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), taken an intervention, I would have had the opportunity not only to congratulate her on her promotion and new post, but to ask her to come clean and name the individuals and groups who have lobbied against including fines. It would be difficult for her to name any apart from those inside the British Retail Consortium. It is wrong that the Government have capitulated—they have not struck the balance—and not included fines in the Bill.

I do not believe that naming and shaming will be an adequate deterrent, for the reasons that hon. Members have given. A fine would appear on a company’s financial accounts, to which shareholders’ and ordinary members’ attention is drawn at annual general meetings. The large supermarkets might still make large profits, but shareholders’ attention would be drawn to a fine on those accounts, even if it is insignificant compared with the profits. That would be enough for many of the shareholders to say, “We need to do things better, and to work with the adjudicator.” In that way, the supermarket would not just sit back and wonder whether the news that day would mean that they would be named and shamed in a newspaper headline, or a retail magazine, which not everybody reads. I should like to concentrate the Government’s mind on that—the suggestion comes not just from Opposition Front Benchers

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made a good, detailed speech on the measures in the Bill that the Opposition support, he also spoke about the differences between the Government and the Opposition. He did not do so for the sake of having differences, but so that we get the measures right at the first opportunity and legislate properly. We want a fair Bill, and we want an adjudicator, referee or ombudsman who has the tools from day one to do their job. They should not have to come cap in hand to Parliament for another measure.

The reserving of fines is nonsense. As the Minister said, they could take up to six months to set up, in which time there might be other priorities, as there have obviously been in the two and a half years when the Bill was not introduced, or there could be a lack of will on the Government’s part. The House has the opportunity to table an amendment in Committee. After the pressure of this debate, the Government may introduce a measure to give the adjudicator the ability to fine.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman has a proud record. He condemns the Government for being slow to introduce the Bill, but does he agree that Governments are very often criticised for not having pre-legislative scrutiny? In this case, that has taken place, probably to the benefit of the Bill.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is a supporter of pre-legislative scrutiny, but he does not believe it delays Bills for two and a half years. The Government have not had a heavy work load on Bills. If we compare the number of legislative days in the House with the number in other Parliaments, we see that the Government have had a lot of time to introduce the Bill. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I want to move on to whether we should have a fine or naming and shaming.

The only difference between the Government and the Opposition is on whether we have adequate sanctions for the big 10 supermarkets. Has the Minister or the Government considered not only the big 10, but the major suppliers in the chain, which are as big as the supermarkets? Will the adjudicator have the ability to name and shame them? That is important. Some of the major suppliers are multinational organisations, and put a lot of pressure on our growers and farmers. Will the Minister respond on that? I would have pushed for such a measure in my private Member’s Bill, because I want fairness right through the supply chain, and not just among the top 10 supermarkets, which have the ability to self-finance the measure so that all are treated equally. The supermarkets should also have the ability to complain to the adjudicator or ombudsman. That is important if we are to have a fully open system of recourse through naming and shaming. The supermarkets should be able to put their side of the argument if the boot is on the other foot, although that would not happen often. I should like the Government to take that on board.

The measure has popular support, not just in the House, but in the country. As I have said, it has brought together non-governmental organisations, lobby groups, and farmers and growers throughout the UK, because there has been an injustice in how the grocery market has operated. The Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, who is the third to take up the role in less than three years, have an opportunity. Her predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is now Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said only last week at the Dispatch Box that it was essential to use sanctions to fine energy companies, which are alleged to be ripping off their customers. We must have consistency. The same should apply to large supermarkets that are alleged to be ripping off suppliers and consumers—at the end of the day, consumers pay the higher prices that filter through.

Rather than naming and shaming, we need fines in the Bill, and a real commitment to fairness in the system. The Bill will help, and I support it, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote for including fines in the Bill rather than just make speeches about it. The eyes of the consensus that the Bill has gathered will be on us, and we should show that we speak with one voice. Although the Under- Secretary would not take an intervention from me, I will take one from her if she wants to say who has lobbied her and why we should not include fines in the Bill. She has tried to make the case, but she does not want to take the opportunity I am offering her. Many of the supermarkets I have spoken to would not be that bothered if fines were included in the Bill, which has also achieved consensus among all the bodies I have named. As the hon. Member for St Ives has said, two or three supermarkets have come out in favour of the Bill. It will not be long before there is consensus among the top 10 supermarkets.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who speaks with great knowledge of and expertise in agriculture, and she knows the contents of the Bill. Her comments about pillar one were particularly well made. The subject has received poor press, but it is absolutely essential to the well-being of many farmers who farm on hill and other remote areas of these islands.

I declare an interest, as I am still responsible for an active farm that sends most of its products to a major supermarket via a slaughterhouse operated by Vion which, as we have heard, announced today that it was going to pull out of the UK. It employs nearly 1,000 people in the constituency next door to mine, and many of the farmers I represent use that facility to market their livestock. I hope that the Minister will take note of that, because it is a particular issue for us.

I commend and congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), on how she moved Second Reading. She did it with enthusiasm and panache. Not only is she able, but she is lucky, too. She was in the right place at the right time to pick up the Bill, which has support across the House and is one we have been waiting for for a very long time. She is not only able and lucky, but standing on the shoulders of giants who have taken the business forward in the past. Mention has already been made of Colin Breed, a former Member of this House, who was the first person to produce a report that put in print what many people believed—that is, that supermarkets, because of the way in which they had grown and now dominated the marketplace, were taking an unfair advantage. That led to the first Competition Commission report on the subject.

This is a failing market. Many of us believe that if markets are working properly they need light regulation, but this is certainly an example of a failing market in which the people making the purchasing decisions are so large and dominant in the market that they can adversely affect it to the detriment of the small producers. We need regulation, and I believe that the Bill is a fine piece of legislation that will contribute to resolving the problems.

Let me make a few suggestions about what we could consider in Committee when the individual clauses are debated. Mention has already been made of the ability of the adjudicator to implement fines. I certainly support that and would support a debate on the subject in Committee. It seems to me that just because an adjudicator could impose fines, fines would not necessarily be imposed or have to be imposed. The fact that the power was available to the adjudicator would make the job a lot easier and would put pressure on the supermarkets to take every opportunity to ensure that their dealings with their suppliers were fair.

Naming and shaming can have a big effect on supermarkets. I have been told that during the summer, when the dairy industry was in turmoil, the straw that broke the supermarkets’ backs, making them increase the prices they paid to farmers and enter into the voluntary code that a former Agriculture Minister was so instrumental in introducing, was the huge Twitter and Facebook campaign about the supermarkets that were the worst in abusing their suppliers. That was the turning point. Obviously, the farmers were protesting on the streets, but the campaign among consumers made a difference. Naming and shaming has a powerful impact on supermarkets, but the ability to impose a fine would give extra power to the adjudicator.

One question that has been asked is what role the adjudicator would have in the voluntary code that the supermarkets have entered into with their suppliers, which is something that the Minister should consider. I know that a number of people have written to the Department and not received an answer. Are we dealing just with the grocery code or with other codes that have been entered into voluntarily by the producers and the supermarkets?

Food chains are rather complex, and rarely does a farmer supply a supermarket directly. That does happen, but it is not the usual way in which food moves along the chain. Often, there are other people between the producer and the retailer. In the milk industry, farmers supply dairies that either bottle the milk and send it off in liquid form or produce dairy products such as cheese, yoghurt and so on. In the meat industry, the chain will often include slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. There are also other parts of the food chain, such as wholesalers and distributors. The systems are very complex, and I hope that the Bill will ensure that their complexity will be considered by the adjudicator and that the adjudicator will be able to intervene when he thinks the market is failing.

All in all, I believe the Bill addresses many of the problems that small producers have experienced over the past 20 years in dealing with massive purchasing organisations such as supermarkets. The Bill can be improved, and I ask the Minister to consider the ability to impose fines as well as whether the adjudicator will have a role to play in any codes that are entered into voluntarily between producers and supermarkets.

Ash Dieback Disease

Roger Williams Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am very pleased that the debate has adopted a rather calmer and more constructive tone than the one it started with. Trying unsuccessfully to land political blows on the Department will do nothing to sort out the problems we face today. I compare this situation with the time when I entered this House and foot and mouth was rampant; a much more considered tone was adopted then.

I want to emphasise the international approach to dealing with these problems. The international community is much better organised at dealing with animal health than with plant health. The whole scientific scene seems to put much more emphasis on animal science than plant science, and we probably do not have the botanists we need to address these problems.

We have rightly been told that in Australia and the United States there is much better organisation and greater care taken in ensuring that those who enter the country bring no plant or animal material with them. In this country, we have the international observatory for foot and mouth, so whenever that disease is identified across the world, the variety in question is brought here and compared against other varieties. We need something of that nature to deal with plant health, and I am sure that Britain would be very well placed to achieve that.

I want to end on a fairly optimistic note. The disease has been compared to Dutch elm disease, but there are considerable differences. For instance, the English elm is reproduced by suckers, which means that almost every tree has the same genome as any other. Therefore, if one tree is susceptible to the fungus attack, all the trees will be. However, ash is propagated by cross-pollination, which means that there are a great variety of genetic types. As has already been said, some resistant varieties can be identified. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) pointed out that we have the skills in this country to do the plant-breeding work that could yield a tremendous benefit not only for this country’s ash population, but right across Europe and the world.

We face a particularly difficult disease that could affect our whole landscape, but we are in a better position to deal with it than we were with Dutch elm disease.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

That is a matter for the devolved Administrations who have responsibility for agriculture and for what they feel is appropriate for their own jurisdictions. The Government will offer any support and help they can, and provide advice to further the objective of a voluntary code, is that is what is wanted. The Department maintains contact and has conversations with counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and will continue to do so.

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

In consulting on the European Union dairy package, will the Minister take into consideration the wish of dairy farmers to set up producer organisations to strengthen their hand in the milk market?

[Mr Heath]

I am very aware of that issue, and once we have the final agreement and settlement, I hope to proceed in that area with the utmost possible speed.

Badger Cull

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is fascinated with firearms, but shooting badgers will not work either. I do not say that a cull will have no effect; of course it will have an effect. Killing any of the species that carry TB—not just badgers but including cattle—will have an effect, but it will not solve the problem. Indeed, killing every badger will not eradicate bovine TB. I hope that the step proposed by the hon. Gentleman will not prove necessary in years to come, given the work that is being done on the biology, because I believe we can move closer to eradication by investing the huge sums that we are discussing in research programmes aimed at establishing a vaccination regime.

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

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Science and Technology Committee. Evidence given to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament suggested that this is a question not of money but of time, because to develop the vaccine we need generations of badgers and cattle.

[Andrew Miller]

There is a chicken and egg argument and a serious challenge facing us. My concern is that the House is not taking the issue of zoonotic conditions seriously enough. We must take a much more mature view on the inevitable consequences of the greater mobility of people and of animals in the food chain while they are alive; otherwise, we shall be dealing with not only bovine TB but other conditions. I hope that when Ministers press the Treasury on the comprehensive spending view they will pass on the message that, without sensible investment, we will have this debate time and again and that, even if all badgers were culled, farmers would still be disadvantaged by this dreadful disease.

It is easy to criticise one side or the other of the argument, but even DEFRA’s nine-point summary states:

“If culling is undertaken, it should be in addition to, not instead of, existing bTB control measures in cattle, which should be maintained and strengthened.”

I have yet to hear a single word from a Minister on the strengthening of the regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

There should be no doubt in the minds of Members on both sides of the House that bovine tuberculosis has serious economic and emotional implications for a number of farmers in the United Kingdom. We need to find a sustainable and human solution to this scourge.

According to the scientific evidence, to achieve a significant reduction in bovine TB, badger culling would need to be take place over a huge geographical area—as large as 500 sq km. It would also need to be very intensive, virtually wiping out the badger population in the area.

The Government must make clear what they intend to do following the initial trials. Will their policy be to allow culling over a much larger area, with much larger numbers of dead badgers? That could pose a risk to the badger population as a whole. As Members are well aware, the problem is that a cull of less than 70% means ineffective disease control, while a cull of more than 70% means a risk of eradication of the badger population across the country. The Government claim to have devised much more effective culling methods, but how can we know when those methods have not been tried yet? Given that shooting badgers has never been used in the UK before as a means of control, it must be doubtful whether it would lead to the same results in bovine TB eradication as the badger trials conducted by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.

A follow-up report on the randomised badger culling trial, published in February 2010, warned of the need for any cull to be well planned and co-ordinated, and of the potential for small-scale or irregular culls to result in increases rather than decreases in bovine TB incidence. The Government have so far failed to co-ordinate the figures for the number of badgers in the cull areas for the purpose of meeting their 70% target. The latest survey data show the number of badgers in each cull area to be double the figure used by DEFRA to calculate the costs of the cull. DEFRA used a figure of 1,300 badgers in each 300 sq km cull area, but on 17 October it revealed in a written answer that the figures were actually 3,600 in west Gloucestershire and 4,300 in west Somerset. The Minister’s response to my question about the figures this week was also confused.

It is clearly difficult to monitor the badger population accurately. This week, Lord Krebs referred to a variation of between 1,000 and 5,000 in the space of just a few days. However, Natural England needs to know the actual number of badgers in each area in order to know how many must be killed. Without such accurate population data, it is hard to assess whether the 70% target can be met, or how the results of the trial can be compared with those of previous trials that were conducted on independent scientific basis.

[Roger Williams]

One of the problems with the Krebs trials was that they were interrupted by the foot and mouth outbreak. Instead of five annual culls in five years, there were four culls spread over a period of between five and six years.

[Meg Munn]

I am not sure exactly how that relates to what I have been saying, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

Protecting wildlife is something about which I feel strongly, and I know that many Members in all parts of the House feel the same. The Council of Europe’s convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats, also known as the Berne convention, is a legally binding convention that aims

“to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats”.

There are currently 50 signatories, including all the members of the European Union and the Union itself, as well as several other European and north African countries. The United Kingdom Government have been a signatory since the 1970s. Badgers are listed in appendix III of the convention, and contracting parties are committed to prohibiting

“the use of all indiscriminate means of capture and killing and the use of all means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations”.

Article 9 provides contracting parties with the conditions under which exceptions can be made to the rules protecting appendix III-listed species. They include the prevention of “serious damage” to livestock, but only in circumstances in which there is “no other satisfactory solution”, and only when the action taken

“will not be detrimental to the survival of the population concerned”.

Owing to the controversial nature of this badger cull, secrecy is required in its planning and start; but we know, farmers know, and the local populations know what is happening, and that must place a question mark over the effectiveness of the operation. The safety of the public in the two areas involved poses a potential problem. If the public are to be 100% safe, the boundaries will have to be revealed, but that would prevent the identity of participating farmers and landowners from remaining secret. Moreover, the taking of precautions to avoid any criminal activity by protesters—not only to avoid damage, but to ensure the effectiveness of the cull—would become harder to achieve. It should be borne in mind that, according to the 2011 consultation, more than 50% of public opinion is against the cull.

The Government’s impact assessment has already shown that the cull will cost farmers more than it saves them. In a follow-up to DEFRA’s document containing the estimated costs of various culling methods, a report on the randomised badger culling trial pointed out that those estimates did not include any capital cost to farmers or costs of training and co-ordinating efforts, and concluded that the costs of this culling method could exceed the long-term financial benefits. Following Natural England’s updated figures for the badger population, the National Farmers Union has admitted that the cost to farmers would be too high. If the ultimate objective is to prevent the slaughter of cattle and therefore a loss of farmers’ livelihoods, why do the Government believe that the appropriate solution is to put a greater financial strain on farmers and on the public purse?

The Government recognise that vaccination is the real strategy for the long term, but they are downplaying the current possibilities. As other Members have pointed out, although the oral badger vaccine would have greater potential for more widespread use, we must accept that its development is some years away. However, developing and using the injectable vaccine would be a step in the right direction.

In 2007, the previous Government decided not to license farmers to cull badgers, but to make vaccination a priority, and increased spending on vaccines. Over the last 10 years, DEFRA has spent more than £7 million on research into badger vaccines, and in March 2010 the first TB badger vaccine was authorised. The plan had been to deploy it in six areas in England, but that was reduced to one area in June 2010. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) has discussed the 2010 study, which showed that positive TB tests among badgers were reduced by almost 74%.

Vaccinating cattle to give the herd a level of combined immunity, which slows the spread of the disease until it reaches zero, should be developed. I will not discuss that point in detail as it has already been addressed. We know, however, that vaccinating cattle and having a DIVA test are the right things to do.

This debate is titled, “Badger Cull”, but it is not just about saving the lives of badgers; it is also about saving the lives of cattle. The key point is that we must do what is effective not only for the short term, but for the long term. I believe that the Government have got this seriously wrong. There is an alternative, and they should take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has just given us a wonderful example of how politics can stray down paths that are unwise. Babies cry, dogs bark and politicians legislate. When we have a problem, sometimes even one that is beyond solution on heaven or earth, we feel that we have to so something. It is often better to do nothing, as history proves. Under the previous Labour Government, 75 Bills were passed that have never been implemented; they went through the House but nothing happened afterwards. It is the futile urge of the political class—that is what we are—to feel that we must always do something, usually by legislating, but often that multiplies the problem that we are trying to address.

In 1991, my friend and colleague Roy Hughes, who was a Member of the House for 30 years, first for Newport and then for Newport East, managed to bring through the Bill that designated badgers as a protected species. It was part of a movement that has been going on for a long time to ensure that we, as the superior species, treat all other living beings with respect and protect them from gratuitous suffering.

One of the issues that I have with the House is the need to make it more representative of the population as a whole. We have certainly made great progress in that regard by increasing the number of women Members, of whom you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a splendid example, as are the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). What a splendid debate we have had. I have been tempted to go and have my lunch, for which I have been waiting for some time, because I feel a sense of redundancy as a result of the brilliant way that they put their case in their speeches and in their interventions, some of which were not answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) intervened on the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) to ask a very pertinent question: why has there been an increase in bovine TB?

One of my jobs in ensuring that the House is more representative relates to a group—there are millions of them in the population—that is grossly under-represented: we have a desperate shortage of octogenarians. I am looking forward to the people of Newport West putting that right in 2015. One of the joys that come with old age is a long memory. I can recall the fuss about bovine TB in 1946, when I was 11 years old. There were then 47,476 cases of bovine TB in 1946, but the figure had fallen to 628 in 1979. It would be simplistic to suggest that that was because of the arrival of Clement Attlee and the glorious dawn of socialism between 1945 and 1951, before the beginning of the dark age of Thatcherism in 1979. It was not Thatcher. We know that we went for 20 years with fewer than 1,000 cases of bovine TB a year.

[Roger Williams]

Almost eradicating bovine TB in the 1950s and ’60s was a truly remarkable achievement, but the difference between then and now is that there was no wildlife reservoir back then.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that we went for 20 years without doing anything, as has been suggested. We did not interfere. I do not believe that the cull will do any good, because the evidence suggesting that is overwhelming. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) complained about “The Geek Manifesto”, which asks for science-based policies in the House, which are rare. He went on to say, “I have absolutely no evidence for this, but…” before putting forward a preposterous claim.

The trouble with the House is that so often we have no evidence for what we do. We are rich in prejudice in what we do. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the way that we treat farmers. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, we know that what the NFU wants, the NFU gets. I suggest that those Members should start to do a little more thinking for themselves, stand up to farmers—I and many other Members have many farmers in our constituencies—and tell them when they are wrong. They are certainly wrong on this.

We went through a long period during which bovine TB was not a special problem. Why is the concern always about bovine TB, because 10 times as many animals die on the farm as a result of other diseases and no compensation is paid? Why are the farmers not desperate about that? Why do we concentrate on this one disease?

The turning point when the disease became out of control and a major problem was the epidemic of foot and mouth disease. The controls were laid off because the focus was on eliminating the foot and mouth disease and the other problem was restocking. Cattle were moved to different areas, and we suddenly had a massive problem with bovine TB, which was mostly the result of cattle-to-cattle or soil-to-cattle infection. Some people want to seek a simple solution, but the solution is a false one. We should look at the geek manifesto and have policies that are rich in science and in the truth. Otherwise, we will do nothing now to solve a problem that will evolve. In the near future, vaccination will become a practical solution. I believe that the decision taken by the Welsh Government is the right one.

Let us look at what is going on. I believe that last week the coalition Government grabbed the statement by the NFU as manna from heaven because they knew that they were politically embarrassed. They are redefining themselves as a new party that is nastier than ever before. The public do not see the justification for a mass slaughter of a beloved animal as reasonable or practical. In a year’s time, when the coalition Government have done everything they can, having enthusiastically blamed the previous Government, the European Union and civil servants for everything that goes on, and if they get another year and a half to build the incredible ineptocracy that they are creating, where will their courage be then? Will they tell the public, “We need a badger cull now”? Will they get deeper into unpopularity? Will they advertise themselves again as the even nastier party, by attacking defenceless living creatures?

A group of people in my constituency have been caught indulging in badger culling. I think that many of us would agree that there is an element of sport which, sadly, many people enjoy. They enjoy killing wild animals. It is not part of the growing civilisation of this country, as we go from decade to decade and treat other living species with greater respect, not contempt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The debate has unfortunately become perhaps a little polarised, but we have had a determination to focus on the science. The interesting thing is that the same scientists are being used—if I might use that expression—by both sides.

The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), my near neighbour, has highlighted the issue as it was set out to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I am still a member of the Select Committee, and I have served on it since 2005. As the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said earlier, we hope to look again at some of the vaccination issues in the near future. However, the main piece of work that the Select Committee carried out during that period was the one to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

I will come back to the science, but I want briefly to re-emphasise something that many hon. Members on both sides of the debate have pointed out. This is a very pressing issue in terms of cost to the rural economy and to the Treasury—indeed, to all of us as taxpayers—because of the amount of money having to be spent dealing with the effects of the problem, even if we are not dealing with the causes. Those costs will continue to rise, as has been freely admitted on both sides.

There is a human effect, too. We have heard about the disease’s effect on farmers—not just the distress caused, but the fact that ultimately it will push some people out of farming. I wrote to a court where a company was trying to repossess a farmer’s property, on the basis partly of the farm being under TB restrictions and therefore not being able to trade efficiently. The farmer and his family and others employed by the business constantly live with that worry.

The disease has an animal welfare cost for livestock and the wildlife population.

[Roger Williams]

Some people who keep cattle are saying, “I can’t put up with this any more,” so they sell their cows and buy a plough, with the result that more wheat is being grown, which is not what we want for the landscape.

[Dan Rogerson]

That is absolutely true, although in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency and of mine that choice is not available, so land will go out of production, with the loss of all the environmental “goods” such as stewardship and protection of the landscape.

The only piece of work that we have on which we can base an understanding of the science is, as hon. Members on both sides of the debate have said, the report that the ISG submitted to the Government based on the randomised culling trials. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon was right that its conclusions are crucial to the debate, but the question is whether one stops just before the end of the report, where the group said that culling has an effect and can help, or goes on to the coda, where it outlines its ultimate position and states that it does not think culling is practical. I argue that that is for the Government, politicians and those who will implement the policy on the ground to resolve. That I why the Select Committee felt that we needed to give the Government a chance to respond.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Select Committee’s membership in the previous Parliament: the late David Taylor, an active Member on many issues and on culling; the former Member for Stroud, David Drew; and Dr Lynne Jones. They were of such independent minds that it was a great comfort to Lord McAvoy when the Committee visited rural North Yorkshire or the south-west to look into the issue, because if instead they had been here, they might have been a little more challenging of the then Government’s position on whatever matter was being debated. They freely admitted that they were not convinced that culling was the answer to the problem, whereas others wanted to give those in the farming community the opportunity to show that it could work. The collective view that we reached appears in black and white.

The scientists—Professor John Bourne, Christl Donnelly, Rosie Woodroffe and Sir David King—gave evidence before us. The atmosphere between them was interesting; it was probably more of an atmosphere than we sometimes have in here for Prime Minister’s Question Time, such was their commitment to the work they had done. None the less, the Select Committee reached the view that it did.

I should like to look at the alternatives to the culling trials. I emphasise that we are discussing pilots, not country-wide implementation overnight, and moving forward carefully, sensitively and in line with the science in two areas to demonstrate that culling is effective.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I declare an interest as I am a cattle keeper; indeed, over the past five years I have had a herd that went down with TB. My comments will not be made on a personal or anecdotal basis, and certainly not on an emotional basis, but rather they shall be based on sound science.

It is interesting to reflect a little on the history of this issue. Until 1950, bovine tuberculosis was endemic in British cattle herds. As a zoonotic disease that can be transmitted from animals to humans, that was obviously a danger, so the Government decided to eradicate it. They were spectacularly successful, and by about 1960 there were few instances of bovine TB in cattle herds. That situation was maintained for about 20 years, but in 1971 a dead badger was found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis on a farm where cattle had gone down with the disease, and from then on it became ever more apparent that badgers were involved in the spread of the disease.

The Badger Trust website states that bovine TB

“may also be caught through contamination of feeding and watering sites and from infected wildlife, including badgers”.

That is what led to the trials by Lord Krebs, which I commend as a piece of scientific work, but only in as far as they went.

When that work was concluded, Sir David King, chief scientific adviser at the time, was asked to prepare a report. I do not have time to go through that report, but I recommend it to hon. Members. It is an extraordinarily balanced and insightful piece of work that needs looking at. Sir David King came to the conclusion that by building on trials by Lord Krebs, and by identifying their weaknesses, pilot schemes could be introduced that would lead to the minimisation of bovine TB in this country.

Sadly, in 2007 the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rejected that report and we have had five wasted years. Although the Government introduced extra measures for farmers, nothing was done to address the wildlife reservoir, and five years on, we must deal with a much more difficult situation than in 2007. Sir David King’s report is a wonderful piece of work, and I commend it to Members.

Let me say a little about vaccination. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that the most appropriate vaccine to use at the moment is the BCG vaccine. That is true because it is the only vaccine. It was developed in about 1910, first used in 1921, and whenever and however it is tested, its effectiveness ranges from about 60% to 80%. In some circumstances, it is not effective at all, and it was withdrawn from human use in this country in 2005. We are told that a wonderful new vaccine is on the horizon—new technology—but no, we will still be using the vaccine that I was given 50 years ago, as, I am sure, were many other hon. Members.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat misleading. The DEFRA website states that

“in January 2012 an application for marketing authorisation…was submitted to the UK’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate…for assessment”

in relation to the BCG vaccine. It was submitted almost a year ago, and the website states that it will come to fruition in a year. The DIVA test is also ready to go. The idea that we are going back to 1910 is simply misleading.

[Roger Williams]

My point is that it is the same old vaccine—we have not made progress and there is no magic bullet.

I am sticking my neck out a bit, but I cannot think of any farmers, and certainly not in my constituency, who, given the choice between culling badgers or having an effective programme based on vaccines for eliminating bovine TB in the cattle herd, would not choose the vaccination route. They would be very strange if they did not in those circumstances. Farmers regularly vaccinate their stock for various diseases, but only because those vaccines have proved to be efficient and effective.

We have reached the stage at which we cannot wait any longer for the promise of an effective vaccine. I support the Government in going ahead with their pilot trial culls of badgers, to take forward the work done by Lord Krebs and to tease out how we can better eliminate the disease in both badgers and cattle. That would benefit farmers throughout the country, and wildlife.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Roger Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman that biosecurity can help, but the problem is that we are dealing with an animal that can get into sheds. When I was in opposition, I went to Michigan and they had clear evidence where they had separated white-tailed deer from cattle herds and invested significantly in fencing off the cattle herds indoors. It is not possible to do that with badgers, because our cattle system has cattle out on the fields, and 1 ml of badger urine yields 300,000 colony-forming units of disease and it takes only 0.001% to infect an animal. That is the problem. We have animals out on grass, mixing freely with wild badgers, and that is where the disease is being picked up.

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

I draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was until recently a Minister in the Department, is right. People living in the countryside are not surprised, because they report seeing more badgers more frequently. Does the Secretary of State agree that work should be undertaken on the correlation between the increase in badgers and the increase of bovine TB in the cattle herd?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The evidence is extremely obvious. We can see from 1972 onwards that when there is a big increase in the badger population there is an increase in TB. It is very simple. I do not know of a single country in the western world that does not bear down on disease in wildlife and in cattle.

Dairy Industry

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for securing the debate.

It has been a difficult summer for the farming industry, and for farmers in general. It has been a challenging number of months for dairy farmers, and I welcome this parliamentary time to debate the issue. The dairy industry is critical to the farming community and the broader agricultural industry in my constituency of South Down, where different conditions appertain to how prices are set for the dairy industry.

I am more than aware of the problems that exist for English producers. I attended the recent rally in Methodist central hall where that case was put strongly. In fact, we took evidence in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), on the issue. From that evidence session, it was quite clear that dairy farmers here were financially challenged and looking for a better deal.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to concentrate on issues encountered by dairy farmers in Northern Ireland, who face similar problems combined with other potentially more pressing difficulties and, as the Minister will know, a different operating regime whereby prices for milk are set by the auction system. Raw milk prices are more volatile in Northern Ireland when compared with prices for the same commodity here owing to the exposure of the Northern Ireland dairy industry to world commodity markets. Approximately 80% of milk production in Northern Ireland is exported in one form or another, the majority of which is sent outside the European Union. The price volatility of global commodity markets has contributed to milk prices that are still 3p per litre behind last year’s higher figure.

Like producers in England and Wales, the industry in Northern Ireland has suffered from the drought in America and Russia, combined with an extremely wet summer, all of which has had a decisive impact on silage-concentrate prices across the market, and the resulting milk production rise has been calculated at approximately 4p per pint. The extremely wet summer has further increased the reliance on more expensive imported food concentrates as local silage and hay supplies become depleted. This is likely to continue into autumn and winter. Such conditions have largely negated the recovery in prices witnessed in the last few weeks at the most recent milk auction in Northern Ireland. The milk price at the latest milk auction in Northern Ireland was between 25p and 26p, with the price falling as low as 22p back in June. Notably, despite the slight rally, this remains markedly lower than the cost of production, which can run 4p to 5p higher, and is 3p lower than the price this time last year.

That cost of production has risen because of the wet summer and rising feed prices, and the situation is exacerbated in Northern Ireland as so much of our milk is exported, which makes our industry particularly prone to outside pressures and volatility that are quickly reflected in the auction system. In fact, I understand that price volatility is likely to remain a feature of the dairy industry in Northern Ireland. New ways will have to be found to minimise its impact on the industry.

A parallel issue is the price reductions in milk offered by some small independent retailers, which can also leave farmers vulnerable to market conditions. Milk is often used as a loss leader, with prices being dropped to a level that is not sustainable for the industry. They can be significantly lower than the price of production. It is also notable that market research has shown that customers are willing to pay up to an additional 5p per litre to ensure that farmers get a fair deal, especially when that is explained in terms of the sustainability of the dairy industry.

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

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Is she as confused as I sometimes am by people insisting on fair trade coffee and tea, but not fair trade milk?

[Ms Ritchie]

I am with the dairy industry and with the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I live in the countryside and am well aware of how the situation affects not only dairy farmers, but those involved in beef and sheep production. They feel that they do not get a fair price at the farm gate. Farmers in Northern Ireland feel that they get a lower price than those in Britain.

In the light of all that, I note with interest the recent voluntary code of practice agreed between processors and non-aligned producers in England and Wales. In such a context, there is a need for a commitment by all sides to reach a similar agreement in Northern Ireland, where no such voluntary code of practice currently exists. I understand that the dairy industry in Northern Ireland decided to wait on the outcome of discussions in Britain before deciding whether the code would be appropriate to its circumstances, and that different industry groups will meet later this month to consider their position. However, I am in no doubt that the achievement of a resolution in Northern Ireland is particularly pressing, as farmers there are less likely to be aligned with large supermarkets.

All sides and interests in the situation must recognise that their relationship is symbiotic and we must find a path that ensures a fair settlement to guarantee the success of a staple native industry. In that respect, I hope for some collaborative governance in advance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which I hope will have teeth. I hope it will have the regulatory power to deal with the issues in question. I urge the Minister, whom I welcome to his new post, to talk to the appropriate Minister in the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland about the need to give the Northern Ireland dairy industry a fair wind.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I am still involved in farming—though not in dairy farming for the last 50 years, and even then not on a scale that would have caused any over-production.

I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and all the other members of the EFRA Committee for their contributions today and their work on this matter. I look back fondly at the time that I spent on that Committee, but if I remember correctly, we were also doing then the work that is being done at the moment.

I welcome the Minister to his place; as an MP, he has always had an interest in agricultural matters, and he comes from Somerset, which is right at the heart of the west country milk-producing region.

I pay tribute to the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), who has now moved away from his post. He had a long apprenticeship in Opposition and perhaps too short a time in power. He delivered for British agriculture and I know that farmers think the world of him. I was at the Methodist central hall meeting, which was probably one of angriest farmers meetings I have ever attended. I am a veteran of farmers’ demonstrations, but that one was exceptional. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman handled it very well. Only so much can be done at a political level, but politicians can work with the industry to change public perception and public opinion on such matters, which has certainly happened.

It was a year of unrest for those in the dairy sector. They are feeling the effects of the increase in the cost of inputs—fuel, fertiliser and other oil-based products—but unlike other agricultural sectors, such as red meat and cereals, they have seen the price of their commodity decreasing, whereas other sectors have seen some compensation in the form of increasing prices.

In terms of price, the supermarket industry looks on milk as one of those staple foods that consumers judge supermarkets on, and as such, it has always been the focus of price wars. Even this morning in Tesco, eight pints were still selling for £2. In some ways, I do not criticise the supermarkets selling the milk—they can sell it for what they want—but they should not penalise farmers in their competition with other supermarkets. We have very high animal welfare standards. The public demand it. If that is to continue, farmers have to get a decent price.

Naming and shaming has made a difference—some of the processors have certainly increased their prices. The former Minister told us in July that the voluntary code of practice was coming and was only “days away,” and I am pleased to say that it was announced at the Royal Welsh show. It was a great fillip to not only Welsh but UK dairy producers. I have looked at the voluntary code:

“It offers a number of benefits and protection to farmers, including: 30 days’ notice of cut to a farmer’s price or other significant change to contractual terms”.

When we compare that with the investment that farmers have made in their farms and milk producing businesses, what are we talking about? Thirty days. Farmers have invested for years and years, and the profitability of their business can be changed just like that. I welcome the voluntary code—it is a good start—but both the milk-processing sector and the supermarkets need to be committed to the total food chain. If people are going to invest in and produce milk and other products of the quality that they have produced in the past, they need confidence that the milk chain will be there and will give them a fair return.

Certain milk processers have told me that a reason for the reduction in milk prices was that the wholesale price of cream dropped from £1,800 a tonne to £1,200 a tonne. The last time I went to buy skimmed milk, they charged the same for the skimmed as they did for the full-cream. Some of the arguments that the milk processing companies have presented should be looked at again.

The milk industry has been the basis of British farming. We need to ensure that the supply chain is made firm and secure, so that people can continue to invest in it and consumers can benefit from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for his welcome, and for the welcome from other Members here today. I am grateful also to the Backbench Business Committee and to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for making this extremely timely debate happen.

Before I go any further, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), and, I hope, my personal friend. I have enormous respect for him. He did an excellent job for the agriculture industry during his tenure of this post, and I regret that I am able to take on the responsibilities only by his leaving them. Nevertheless, I thank him for everything he has achieved over the past two and a half years.

This is a very important debate, as evidenced by the number of Members, from every corner of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who have wished to contribute and are here representing the interests of dairy farmers in their constituencies. I want to say straight away that the dairy sector is hugely important to the United Kingdom, and to me. It is important to me because there are, arguably, more dairy cattle in my constituency than in any other constituency in the country. We make some of the greatest and best cheeses in not just the United Kingdom but the world, and I am not afraid to say so.

[Roger Williams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

If my hon. Friend is going to argue about that statement, no, I will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

I am sure that now the Minister is in post he will be travelling right the way around the world. Will he commit to keeping a bit of Caerphilly in his briefcase, so that he can bring it out as an example of wonderful Welsh cheese?

[Mr Heath]

That will get me into some very interesting discussions with border officials in a lot of countries. I will take the concept of Caerphilly, Cheddar, Lancashire and Cheshire around the world with me, wherever I go.

The dairy sector is enormously important to the United Kingdom. It is the largest agricultural sector, and we should remember that it is worth £3.7 billion annually. It is iconic in our countryside, and is identifiably British. There are good things to say about the industry. We have some very advanced and efficient processing plants, particularly for fresh drinking milk, and in the past year there has been a lot of wider investment in processing, which shows real promise and confidence in the future. Yet, let us not get away from the fact that in the past two months we have seen rallies and protests. There was the meeting in Methodist Central hall, which I, too, was at, and there is genuine worry about the inequity between farm-gate prices and production costs. A significant proportion of farmers may struggle to make ends meet this year, particularly in the context of the price changes, but also because of the rising input costs and the monsoon conditions that many of us have had to survive this summer.

There is nothing new in much of that. I seem to have been dealing with the issue throughout my political career, and I have always been consistent regarding the matter. I am actually grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore for mentioning some of the things that I have said in the past, because I have consistently said that we must have arrangements in the dairy sector that are fair to the farmers, to processors, to retailers and to consumers. Those are not incompatible objectives; they are all on a par. To be fair to at least one processor and retailer, the Co-operative has been mentioned several times. No, it did not do terribly well over the summer, but it has today announced that it is increasing milk prices to 30p a litre from 1 October. That is good news indeed.

Members have raised matters that are slightly away from the economic conditions of the dairy sector. They have talked about the improvements in the Rural Payments Agency, for which I am grateful, because it is absolutely right to say that the agency’s performance has improved. We have discussed TB eradication. Unfortunately, we are still none the wiser as to the position of the hon. Member for Ogmore and his party on that, but I am clear. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) spoke more sense about TB eradication in her contribution than I have heard for a long time, and I am grateful to her for that. We also talked about the groceries code adjudicator, for which I certainly have argued for many years, and I am proud that we are now putting through the House the legislation that will make that a reality.

Let us return to the economic position. We import a quarter of our total dairy needs. We have a £1.2 billion trade deficit. There is a growing demand for food at the global level, and an opportunity to fulfil some of it. Milk quotas will be gone from 2015, but we are not restricted by them now. We have room to expand already, while other member states are held back until 2015 and they desperately want quotas removed now. We have a chance to get in first—otherwise we might lose out. That is why some of the things that my hon. Friends have talked about are so crucial to the future of the dairy industry—promoting the industry around the world, promoting exports and import substitution, and increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of our industry. They are all opportunities for the British dairy industry.

It is not my business to tell people how to run their farms, but we need to look at the vast range of production costs on dairy farms and see if we can learn from best practice, helping farmers to recognise the difference that efficiency and profitability can make, and the improvements that can be achieved on the farm. There are things that dairy farmers can do on their own. For instance, I encourage them to sign up for Dairy Pro. Dairy Pro is the industry’s first integrated continual professional development scheme, which provides training and development to improve both standards of business performance and recruitment and retention within the industry.

There are things that dairy farmers can do together. Several hon. Members have mentioned the EU dairy package, which increases the already significant potential for collaboration through producer organisations. The timetable has not yet been agreed by the European Council and European Parliament, but we do not expect any problems. We expect to be able to start consulting in October, and we hope the legislation will bring the package into effect in spring 2013. I hope dairy farmers recognise the wider benefits that producer organisations may offer. Such organisations are not only about negotiating prices. A well organised producer organisation can make a significant difference to the success of its members by sharing best practice, increasing efficiency and competitiveness and opening up new markets.

department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Roger Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, value the opportunity to bring the issue before the House. I attended the meeting of 3,500 farmers in the Methodist central hall. They were very angry and unhappy. The Minister handled the situation well, but it was a real demonstration of our dairy farmers’ frustration about their treatment.

At a time when British agriculture is doing relatively well, milk prices have fallen dramatically. A year ago, the average price of milk was about 35p a litre; now, it is less than 25p a litre and, as we have been told, the cost of milk production for the average farmer is about 30p a litre. When people have to sell below the cost of production, we will undoubtedly see farmers leave the industry.

In September 2002, there were 3,100 dairy farmers in Wales, but by May 2012 the number had fallen to 1,900. Across the whole of my constituency, there are fewer than 10 milk producers, which is a huge fall in numbers. There has been a downward trend in the production of milk. In 2003, 14.5 billion litres of milk were produced, but today the figure is around 13.5 billion. If those trends continue, the implications are bad not only for farmers but also for consumers. In the medium and long term, they are bad news for retailers and processors.

What can be done to avert a crisis? There is no single bullet, but we need action at every stage of the supply chain, from farmers, processors, retailers, consumers and the Government. As has been said, farmers need to work together. The voice of one farmer carries little weight in the marketplace, but when they join together, their negotiating power is much stronger.

Processors and retailers need to start paying a fair price for milk. Robert Wiseman Dairies, Arla Foods and Dairy Crest must scrap the scandalous price cuts they have imposed on farmers.

Consumers can reward retailers that are doing the right thing. Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have a price formula based on cost. I commend them for that. Consumers should show their appreciation by voting with their feet, and indeed their purses, and punish the Co-op, Asda and Morrisons, which do not have a similar scheme.

We need to start adding value to liquid milk. Our European friends are far better than we are at increasing profits from milk by processing it into cheese, yogurt and the like, which means it can be exported around the world.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my County Durham constituency, many milk producers are suffering. I also agree that milk producers need to sell to wider markets, but does he agree that is no excuse for the behaviour of the wholesalers and the supermarkets?

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. People who are powerful in the marketplace, such as the processors, use their muscle to bear down on the prices paid to producers, who are suffering.

Finally, I turn to the Government. At the summit, the Minister said that a voluntary code between farmers and processors was close to agreement. Will he update the House on the latest progress?

I commend the Government on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which is making its way through the other place. Let us ensure that the legislation passes quickly, with the teeth it needs to do its job.

I welcome the work the Minister has already done on lightening the load of regulation on British farmers, but more can be done. I know he will continue to implement recommendations from the Macdonald report as and when he can.

The dairy industry is in crisis, but the crisis can be averted. Let us work together, so that our dairy industry will have a brighter future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Williams Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Obviously, I cannot tell the hon. Lady what is in the Queen’s Speech, but I invite her to look at the body language of the Deputy Leader of the House as a clear steer that she will not be disappointed.

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

The farming community are very worried about the outbreak of the Schmallenberg virus. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether pan-European work will be done to produce a vaccine against this terrible disease?

[Mrs Spelman]

We are working on a co-operative basis with the other member states that have been affected. One of the lessons from the successful tackling of blue tongue for the farming industry and the vaccination industry is the viability of such a vaccine. It would take several years to produce such a vaccine as it is a new virus and still requires a lot of science to make sure that we make the right decision. I give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that, with the quality of our scientific base added to that of other member states, no stone will be left unturned.