Dairy Industry
Debate between Roger Williams and Angela Smith(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angela Smith
That is clearly for the Minister to answer. I made the point earlier that we need to see effective, co-ordinated action from the UK Government in its relationship with Brussels to ensure that the UK dairy industry is properly served.
In June, the industry pulled together and launched a plan called “Leading the Way”, which states that an estimated 2.5% annual growth in global demand for dairy products over the next 10 years will boost UK dairy production through increased exports and import substitution. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a point about marketing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about localism and the need to ensure that people properly understand that cheeses such as mozzarella are sometimes made in Wales. That is an important point, and a lot can be done on that score. In particular, more can be done to encourage British people to eat British cheese. My own favourite is Wensleydale, the great Yorkshire cheese that is produced in Hull.
Angela Smith
I will not give way, because I need to give the Minister time to respond. “Leading the Way” is an important vision for profitable growth for the UK dairy industry, based on economic, social and environmental sustainability. It focuses on the capacity of the dairy sector and the need for it to be competitive in a global context through scale, innovation and efficiency. What are the Government doing to support the industry at every level, and to improve the industry’s international competitiveness?
The industry’s voluntary code of best practice is another encouraging sign that the sector is addressing some of the structural issues of pricing mechanisms and transparency that need to be resolved. As several hon. Members have said, the dairy code provides a useful voluntary model to ensure that producers get a fair deal, and it avoids inflexible legislation and price fixing. However, it must be made to work and it must be rolled out across the dairy sector. Labour supports and encourages the dairy industry’s voluntary code of practice, which has been drawn up by Dairy UK and the NFU, and we believe that it should be adopted by the entire industry. It is absolutely right that milk producers should get improved bargaining power.
We should all welcome transparent contracts between producers and purchasers that set clear prices, which will add much-needed security. That is why the findings of the UK’s independent review of the voluntary code, which was undertaken by Alex Fergusson and recommended that the code be extended up through the supply chain, were encouraging. I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for launching an inquiry into the matter, which is helpful and appropriate.
The hon. Lady recently wrote to the Secretary of State to seek the Government’s views on the potential for the statutory framework provided by the groceries code adjudicator to be extended to help to alleviate the current problems in the dairy industry. Labour, of course, supports the adjudicator, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was very much involved in getting the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 through the House. The adjudicator’s remit under the 2013 Act does not extend to the relationship between indirect suppliers, such as farmers, and retailers, nor does it apply to price setting. Labour would be open to exploring whether the adjudicator’s role should be extended to include the relationship between milk producers and milk processors.
To tackle the current crisis, we must take important steps domestically and at European level. We believe that retailers, processors and manufactures must work with dairy farmers to ensure a fair return for their product. They must recognise the cost of production and ensure investment and long-term viability.
What are the Government doing to address the structural imbalances that result in low farm-gate prices? What meetings has the Minister had with European colleagues to ensure that British farmers get a fairer price for the milk they produce? What additional EU measures will be taken to ensure the viability of the UK dairy sector? That point was made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) in his intervention. Finally, what are the Government doing to take more proactive steps to promote investment in processing and reduce farmers’ production costs, including support for innovative research and development? Dairy farming plays an integral part in our rural economy, as it has for centuries. The Government must support the sector to overcome the short-term crisis and secure the long-term sustainability of the industry.
Badger Cull
Debate between Roger Williams and Angela Smith(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith
This is the “badgers moving the goalposts” argument, which repeatedly comes back to haunt this debate. The important thing is to have accurate numbers, not least because we do not want to break the Bern convention, and therefore the law, in terms of taking the risk of eradicating an entire species.
On four occasions, the RBCT conducted non-simultaneous culls—this comes back to the point about the short period of time, as they went on over a prolonged period. It was found—the evidence is there—that there was an increase in the proportion of badgers infected, over and above the background norm of the increase in numbers infected by the proactive culling.
In 2010, DEFRA’s science advisory council said:
“There is little useful data on the issue of what time period should be considered as ‘simultaneous’. The Group advised that if culling was carried out in a period of up to 6 weeks (although preferably less), that is likely to reduce the adverse effects of non-simultaneous culling; this advice is based on opinion and not on evidence. The longer the period that culling is carried out in, the less confident one can be that the deleterious effects seen with non-simultaneous culling as carried out in the RBCT will be minimized.”
That is from DEFRA’s own science advisory council. It is absolutely clear that the pilot culls took a fairly significant risk in planning to meet the six-week target. The fact that they failed comprehensively to meet that target supports the claim in the independent expert panel report that the pilot culls were ineffective; they took 63 and 77 nights respectively. Remember that the randomised badger culling trial found that to maximise impact, a cull should take place over eight to 11 nights.
Angela Smith
I will give way just one more time, because a lot of people want to speak.
Roger Williams
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She said that the randomised badger culling trials occurred over 10 to 11 days, but of course they failed miserably to reduce the number of badgers in a way that met their objective.
Angela Smith
The reactive culling in the RBCT did fail. That is not the point. I am talking about proactive culling, which is best carried out over eight to 11 days. Reactive culling is when one kills the badgers in a small area—a hot spot—and does not go back again. The proactive culling is done over a bigger area—that is the important point—annually. It is a much more scientific approach to culling. Reactive culling does not work at all; in fact, it makes the problem a lot worse.
The 70% figure, which is an average, is based on proactive culling. It was demonstrated in the RBCT that it did deliver reductions in cattle TB incidence in the culling zone on a gradual basis. There was, however, a rapid but diminishing increase outside the zone. That is where the 16% figure in the RBCT report comes from. It is often not reported, however, that the 16% figure was based on a scenario that was more optimistic about the potential beneficial impact of culling overall. In fact, the average reduction over nine years was 12%. That is why the Independent Study Group on Cattle TB said that culling could not deliver any meaningful reduction in bovine TB. That is the key point.
Reactive culling reduced badger density by 30% and elevated cattle TB; that is the point that I was making earlier. The problem is that it is not known scientifically where between 30% and 70% removal an effect on TB is achieved, hence the importance of the 70% target. Scientifically, it is the only target that one can use to measure effectiveness.
In summary, the requirement to kill at least 70% of local badgers within six weeks was not an arbitrary target. It was a scientifically driven target. As I have said, the six-week target was set because prolonged culling over more than 12 nights further elevates TB in badgers and is expected to undermine any benefits for cattle TB control. In terms of both the length of the culling period and the targets for numbers killed, the pilot culls failed comprehensively. That prompts questions about the future of culling. If we are to go ahead with more culling, Ministers have to answer this key point: killing effectively, over less than six weeks, will require far more marksmen and far greater resources, so that we can do the work simultaneously. One of the key lessons to be learned from the pilot culls is that we would need much greater resources to do the job, and I am not convinced that taxpayers are prepared to pay for that kind of resource.
It was found in the end that the pilot culling had to make use of cage trapping in addition to free-shooting. That points to the need for much greater resources. If we include policing in the costs, we are looking at more than £4,000 per badger shot in the pilot culls. On the alternative, vaccination costs £2,250 per square kilometre covered. When looking at cage trapping, and whether to vaccinate or cull, we have to remember that vaccination is much cheaper, partly because policing costs are removed from the equation, but also because with vaccination there is no need to dispose of the carcases of badgers culled. We all know that there is a massive army of volunteers ready to help the Government conduct the vaccination. In fact, there is already an initiative to deliver vaccination on a wider scale.
I quickly want to refer to the other important part of the alternative.
Roger Williams
We await the report on that. We have had only leaked evidence and I have heard less critical interpretation of the statistics.
