Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We are considering a review of the national rules relating to bread and flour as they apply to England. We held a public consultation seeking views on possible deregulatory options, which closed on 13 March 2013. We are analysing the 47 responses that we received, in conjunction with the Department of Health. We are committed to ensuring that any policy decision on the removal of mandatory fortification will take into account an assessment of the health impacts, the impact on industry and the implications for other parts of the United Kingdom and the interests of consumers. We intend to announce our decision before the summer recess.

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

T7. Is the Minister aware of any international examples of disease control that could be applicable in the bid to control bovine TB in the UK?

[Mr Paterson]

In opposition, I visited the USA; I went to Michigan. Last month, I went to Australia and New Zealand and I shall shortly be visiting the Republic of Ireland. What they all have in common, in getting rid of this horrible disease, which is a zoonosis, is that they bear down on disease in cattle and they bear down on disease where there is a reservoir in wildlife. That is exactly what we intend to do.

Agricultural Wages Board

Simon Hart Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I am glad to have the chance to speak in this debate. I have been getting increasingly frustrated, as is often the case, by what seems to be a cack-handed effort on the part of the Opposition to ingratiate themselves with the rural community. In so doing, they have managed to be pretty offensive to every aspect of the rural community.

I can only share some anecdotal thoughts in this debate. Prior to entering Parliament, I spent 28 years working in various parts of that community. I have worked on a farm, I have worked for farms, I have worked for big estates and small estates, I have represented landlords, tenants and farm workers, and I have worked in forestry and country sports. There is almost no aspect of the rural economy and the rural community that I have not come into contact with over quite a long period.

Throughout that whole period, not one single person ever said to me, “Of course, what we really need to do is preserve the Agricultural Wages Board.” In the run-up to the last election, I asked a group of farmers and farm workers in my constituency if there was a single thing that the Government could do: if there was one thing only on the Christmas list, what would it be? Without hesitation, the answer was, “Get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board. It has outlived its usefulness.”

[Nia Griffith]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what members of the Farmers Union of Wales told him in response to that question?

[Simon Hart]

I can. The FUW members supported the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. The FUW as a union made rather a different representation. I speak on behalf of members in my own constituency. Of course I cannot speak for the union based in a different area.

One of the things that I find startling is that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), rather than the whole party that she represents, seemed to find it impossible to believe that an owner, a manager, a farm worker and a forester can all work harmoniously together because they have a common shared love of food production or a common shared love of their community and want to do the right thing by their farmer. That seems to be a concept that the Opposition cannot absorb because they have a union-fuelled view that it is some kind of Dickensian existence out there. For those of us for whom it is our daily life—it is where I shall be by the end of tomorrow—it is not like that. It may be like that in Wakefield, but it ain’t like that in Pembrokeshire.

I am particularly sad that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), is not in his place. He seems to be dancing to the union tune on the subject. I know Ogmore in the way that he knows Pembrokeshire, and we both know, as I said, that this is not an issue for agricultural workers in either of our constituencies. I am surprised that he has not stood up to the pressure from the sponsors of the debate and spoken on behalf of the agricultural workers, with whom we are all familiar and for whom we have great respect in west Wales.

[Tim Farron]

I deal with about 9,000 pieces of casework a year and I have not had a single farm worker write to me on the issue, which is surprising, but not when we think that the overwhelming majority of livestock farmers and dairy farmers in places like ours do not employ anybody, because they themselves are so hard up and are probably existing on significantly less then the minimum wage, considering what they earn and the hours that they work. We should be concentrating on how those farmers can get a fair deal for feeding the rest of us.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge because he represents an area suffering those hardships.

I shall not speak for long. I find it bizarre that last night when my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) was fronting a debate on the hardship facing upland farmers, I was reprimanded by Mr Speaker for mentioning cattle when I should have been speaking about sheep. Never mind. Here we are debating something which is not relevant to the hardships facing the agricultural industry, certainly in my area, when we should be devoting our energy to other matters. I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State was not there to hear the debate, which was important and involved her party as much as it involved ours. I am surprised that we are engaged in the present debate when we know that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will not leave agricultural workers, certainly in my area, exposed or vulnerable.

[Glyn Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believed that abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board would lead to some decrease in the wage agricultural workers are paid, we would not be in favour of it? It will not make any difference at all. The Opposition are keen to emphasise that it will, and they are wrong because they do not understand the countryside. They are driven by a completely different motive.

[Simon Hart]

I think that my hon. Friend is wrong on only one point: he says that the Labour party does not understand, but I think that it understands only too well. It is caught in a difficult position because its union sponsors are saying one thing and its constituents in certain areas are saying another.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

May I just confirm that, as a former barrister, I neither belong to a union, nor am I financed by a union? I am concerned about the working conditions and pay of working people. I will ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked the Secretary of State earlier: if after the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board we find that workers’ wages, accommodation and so on deteriorate, will he reintroduce it?

[Simon Hart]

It might surprise the hon. Lady to learn that I am not a member of the Government and so I am not really in a position to answer that. Of course, I sat through 13 years of Labour disdain for rural Britain, and that question was asked on many occasions. However, I do not want to be reprimanded by the Chair twice in two days for getting off the topic by talking about union sponsorship, so if she will forgive me—

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Gentleman said that the motion is somehow sponsored by unions. It is nothing of the sort. This debate is about a point of principle—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Government Members are laughing. This debate is about whether people who work in remote, isolated areas, in unseasonable conditions and in one of our most dangerous industries deserve to be paid 2p an hour above the national minimum wage and to have some sort of protection against eviction from their homes.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I note that pretty much all the electronic traffic we have seen on this debate has been generated by her party’s biggest sponsor. Call me a cynic, but I am not going to accept her comments.

I believe that workers in my area are protected by the minimum wage, employment legislation and a raft of accommodation legislation applying to tied cottages and the like. I do not recognise the image projected by the Labour party of farm workers in tied cottages, and have 28 years’ experience in the industry. I agreed with the Secretary of State when he referred to the noble Lord Falconer’s comment that regional and sectoral pay was a thing of the past. I find it odd that we seem to be disagreeing with that now.

The final abolition of the AWB raises two questions, both of which have been raised before, but since neither has been answered I will ask them again. If the abolition of the AWB exposes young workers, foreign workers or people who are vulnerable, either through poverty or in some other way, in the way the shadow Secretary of State has set out—I know all about the unique aspects of agricultural work—why is it that no other sector in the UK from which a wages board has been removed is suffering from those consequences? Perhaps she could explain—we asked this question earlier but did not get an explanation—why those dangers are apparently unique to agriculture. I will ask her a third time, more in hope than in expectation: would Labour reinstate the AWB if it was lucky enough to form a Government in 2015? It is no good her saying that they have a couple years to come clean about their proposals. I think that this is absolutely the right forum and the right time to make clear the policy as it applies to the AWB of a party that might—I hope not—form a future Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Ministers have still not convinced me about why they want to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. If they are so convinced that agricultural wages will not go down, why are they so determined to abolish it? Why should it matter to them if it continues to exist and people continue to be paid at the rates it sets?

DEFRA’s own assessment has calculated that abolishing the AWB will take £260 million out of the rural economy over the next 10 years. That can mean only one thing: the 80% of agricultural workers who are on grades 2 to 6 will be vulnerable to having their pay driven down to minimum wage levels, regardless of the skills involved, not to mention the antisocial hours and the need to be out in all weather, using complex machinery, but still getting wet and dirty. Of course, that means less money in the rural economy, with a knock-on effect for the village shop and others employed locally.

We talk about fair trade for developing countries and getting a fair price for their products so that their farming communities can get reasonable rewards for their efforts. After much campaigning by Opposition Members, and indeed the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Government have agreed to give the groceries code adjudicator some teeth, which is an important step towards tackling exploitation and giving farmers a fair price for their produce. However, it is equally important to ensure that the workers who harvest that produce are fairly remunerated, and the AWB has a vital role in protecting agricultural workers.

In other words, it is not enough that the groceries code adjudicator ensures that the supermarket does not exploit the farmer; the AWB’s conditions also ensure that the farmer does not exploit the worker. That is particularly important because, as a response to the Macdonald report, the Government are now threatening to reduce the impact of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, whereas we would like to see its remit extended to cover sectors such as care homes and construction.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, the Farmers Union of Wales is firmly opposed to the abolition of the AWB. I find it quite insulting that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) seems to have completely ignored what the FUW has on its website and what it has repeatedly said when it has come to see us.

[Simon Hart]

What I actually said was that the members of that union in my constituency who have approached me take a different view.

[Nia Griffith]

Well, farmers in general want to be fair to their staff, and I would certainly say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that the good guys do not need the legislation, but legislation is necessary for those who do try to exploit people and who do not necessarily play by the rules. As I have said, most farmers want to be fair.

Many farmers in areas such as rural Wales are both employer and employee, because they often work on contract for other farmers. They might sometimes employ agricultural workers, but they or members of their family might also be employed as agricultural workers. They have said themselves that it is not about being unable to set pay rates, but that it is far simpler and fairer in a rural community to say that everyone will go by the same rate. That is the importance of the AWB, and that is exactly what the FUW has been telling us.

Of course, it is not just about a minimum wage, because there are all the other things that the AWB sets, such as allowances for night work and being on stand-by, bereavement, sick leave, holiday entitlement and the rates for under-16s, none of which are covered by the national minimum wage legislation. In a rural community there are few alternative job opportunities and it is difficult for agricultural workers to find alternative employment. The cost of living is often higher because of the higher costs of transport and fewer opportunities to shop around for cheaper deals.

Those who rely on their employer for accommodation are even more vulnerable. There is often no alternative accommodation in rural areas, and the AWB plays a vital role in setting maximum charges for accommodation and minimum standards of sanitation, and in making sure that each worker has their own bed to sleep in.

What will happen when casual workers start their next job and find that the going rate is less? For many of them that will mean that their households incomes fall, so more families will become more reliant on higher levels of tax credit, which will not be good for the public purse. It would be far better to make sure that they had the proper rate of pay for their work and a proper wage from their employer, so that they could be less reliant on handouts.

This is part of a seemingly much wider attack by the Government. I regret that the legislation to abolish the AWB is being passed in such an unpleasant way and by the back door, when the Welsh Government made a very strong case to keep it in Wales when it was part of the Public Bodies Bill, not the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. This has done a terrible disservice to our rural communities.

Upland Sheep Farmers

Simon Hart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I will come back to that point in a moment if I may, but the most important thing is that we reach those farmers who are severely affected, irrespective of whether they are registered with the National Fallen Stock Company. I want to make that absolutely clear, and I hope that that will help the hon. Lady’s constituent.

I want to put on record how grateful I am to the local NFU in Cumbria and the farmers themselves. I will mention Alistair Mackintosh and Robin Jenkinson in Corney Fell who gave their time to explain the consequences to me and to help me to understand what they were up against. I strongly feel that as a Minister one of the best ways to respond to a problem of this kind is simply to talk to people and see for oneself, and then, I hope, take the appropriate decisions.

I also want to put on record the strong impression that I had in Cumbria that the farming community and the wider rural community have responded in a positive and big way. A lot of mutual support went on and continues to go on. People helped one another, and farmers who were not affected searched for sheep on their neighbours’ holdings when they realised that they were in trouble. That is the country way and it is what we expect, but it was happening.

People who were not connected with farming also lent their support. I will mention one group of people, an organisation that occasionally we have differences of opinion with. It was pointed out to me how profoundly helpful the RSPCA officers in the area had been, lending a hand and getting stuck in, not in strict pursuance of their duties as RSPCA officers but because they cared about the animals and the farmers and wanted to do their bit.

I will also mention the banks, because they almost universally get a bad press. It was pointed out to me how helpful HSBC has been in the area and how it has gone out of its way and bent over backwards to offer local farmers support at a time when they desperately need it. I do not know whether that was universal and whether other banks followed suit, but it is important to put it on the record when people help and are prepared to be supportive.

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

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. There has been a lot of talk about sheep, but I hope that the Minister also recognises that the dairy industry has been significantly affected. In some cases, cattle condition and milk yields have gone down as a result of the weather, so perhaps the banks and the companies that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand that his intention is good, and why he wants to draw a parallel, but I am afraid that it is not relevant. We are on sheep farmers and we must stick to that, not start to stray into other matters, which he has done.

Horsemeat

Simon Hart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

Sometimes people simply do not have a choice between buying the slightly dodgy knock-off cheap telly that has probably come off the back of a lorry and going to one of the high street shops and buying a top-of-a-range brand. That is the point that I am trying to make. People may well know that what they are eating is not as good as the organic produce that is sold in, for instance, The Better Food Company, an organic supermarket in Bristol, but they do not have the option of going there. As I have said, even if people had enough money to buy more than one day’s food and could plan ahead and try to cook their own meals, they would still not be buying premium “best of British” mince. They would be buying the sort of mince that was mentioned just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and about which I asked the Secretary of State yesterday. If the Government manage to find their way around European Union regulations, that mince could be up to 50% fat and collagen, and other substances that are not meat, without the consumer’s being any the wiser.

We need to get the message across to Government Members. We are living in a world in which people’s cost of living is being squeezed from all sides. Their incomes and benefits are being cut, their rents are going up, and fuel prices, fares and food prices are rising. Obviously they will buy the packet of eight Tesco value burgers for £1, because they have no other option. According to statistics released last week by Mintel, the market research company, some 30% of consumers now buy budget ranges, as opposed to just one in five back in 2008. We cannot insist that everyone should buy the premium, locally sourced, top-of-the-range products, because some people simply cannot afford to do that. The important point, surely, is that all food should be of a decent quality, and all consumers should know what is in their food.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Although he represents an urban constituency, he speaks with great knowledge and experience about the food industry, and has a reputation for doing so. May I also draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

This topic has not suddenly emerged over the past two and half years; the problem we are talking about today has been a long time coming, and therefore some of the comments from Opposition Members stick in my throat like a dodgy burger. They speak as if this Government have created this problem, but the entire situation has been changing since the second world war, when the proportion of cash an individual spent on their food bill was much larger than it is today. Then, families would have spent 60% of their income on food, but today that figure is much smaller and as such we have lost the context of how valuable our food is.

I drew an analogy with television, but we could say the same about car tyres. A person would never buy second-hand car tyres from someone offering them on the cheap, because they would instantly recognise that their individual safety could be at risk. However, we as consumers seem to have got into a position where we are happy to see the price of food fall and be driven down. We have lost the concept of how valuable our food is, and that has led us to the position we are in today.

The hon. Member for Brent North referred to the fact that the Education Secretary plans to reintroduce cooking and food to the curriculum, which is a great step forward. Two generations of consumer have lost contact with how food is produced and with how to cook raw product, and again, that is to the detriment of our food industry. If the Government can do anything, more education about how to cook food and deal with raw products will mean that consumers are able to buy better quality food for the same money if they learn to shop about and source food from the right places.

Today, UK agriculture finds itself in a different place from the rest of the world, but that is no fluke and comes from bitter experience. The BSE crisis in the UK taught the beef industry valuable lessons about consumer confidence and how the consumer needs to understand, know and have confidence in a product. Today we know that if we go to our local butcher, not only will they be able to sell us a very high-quality cut of meat or processed beefburger, but they will be able to identify the animal that the beefburger came from, as well as its mother and father. That is the level of traceability in the UK butchery industry today, and UK consumers should understand that. Certainly, when that is compared with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the processed meat industry, and with some of the products sold as meat that normal people would not recognise as such, there is a strong message to deliver on behalf of the UK meat industry.

This is not rocket science: the shorter we make the chain, the easier it is to have such traceability, and labelling will be important as we move forward. We heard from the Opposition about how the labelling of our products should be more prominent, yet when they were in power, there were several private Members’ Bills and lobbying by the then Opposition to try to improve labelling and ensure that consumers understood where and how their food was being produced.

[Simon Hart]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that in this instance there was nothing unclear about the labelling? It said beef but in fact it was horse.

[Mr Spencer]

Absolutely, and that is fundamental. Frankly, that could not happen in the UK because environmental health officers and trading standards officers are checking a paper trail that goes right back.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who demonstrated his long experience and expertise in these matters. We are grateful for that contribution, as it helps us to get a better understanding of this subject. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this debate, along with the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions raised. I was one of his predecessors as Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I recall that when I was appointed I was identified in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph as a “townie veggie” and a “lacto-pescatarian”. I also had some fun poked at me by Horse and Hound, although being attacked by Horse and Hound is a bit of a badge of a honour for Labour Members, so it did not do me any harm whatsoever. This issue came across my desk, and I was reassured about the regulations, the monitoring and the enforcement. Some three years later, the Minister is being asked these questions again.

The National Farmers Union was much more generous in its welcome of my appointment. It said, “We don’t care where he comes from or what he eats. We will judge him on what he does for farming.” I built up a very constructive relationship with the NFU in my time as Minister of State at DEFRA, and I have high regard for the farming community. That arises, first, from the quality of product they produce and the very high animal welfare standards to which they produce it. Our standards are much higher than those of most of the rest of the European Union, as can be seen in the lead we have set on chickens, eggs, poultry and the rest. Sometimes that has been at the expense of the farmers, because they pay for it out of the profit they make at the end of the year. We also charge farmers with responsibility for looking after the countryside and our environment. The farming community is a big part of the United Kingdom, economically, industrially and environmentally, so I have nothing but regard for the NFU and its members.

The hon. Member for South Thanet raised two key issues: the general issue of live animal exports; and the secondary issue of what happened at Ramsgate in September. Those issues are distinctly different and need to be addressed differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will cover the Labour party position on live exports in detail, but I can say that we have called for a full review into the trade; a look at the treaty of Rome, because measures to ban any live trade would fall foul of that; and better facilities to be available at or near the port of Ramsgate. Hon. Members have already drawn attention to European regulation 1/2005 and the minimal animal welfare provisions, so I do not need to go into that, although the Minister may wish to refer to it when he responds.

My hon. Friend has previously asked the Minister

“if he will carry out a full review into the animal welfare considerations of the live export trade”.

He was told:

“The Government has no plans to carry out such a review.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 713W.]

It is a measure of the power of Backbench Business Committee debates that the Minister made the statement yesterday that he has taken action on this issue and the export of live animals through the port of Ramsgate will face tougher welfare checks. One can only assume that that is a result of his having examined the questions, the correspondence and the fact that this debate was taking place.

The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been asked to look into the three additional measures that the Minister mentioned: the AHVLA implementing its own contingency plans in the event of an emergency with the transport; improved procedures to ensure that an AHVLA vet is always within an hour of the port to assist inspectors in the event of an emergency or welfare concern; and working with the operator of the transport vessel to develop new contingency measures. Those very important measures have been raised by the Minister and they may offer some reassurance. However, for the House and for the hon. Member for South Thanet clearly they only reinforce the questions she asked in her introductory remarks, such as why it has taken so long for these things to be identified. She also asked about the pre-existing arrangements, and the monitoring and enforcement that was going on.

I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its briefing on the subject. Its policy position is clear. It wants: an end to the long-distance transport of live animals, with a maximum journey of eight hours; amendments to existing legislation; and full costs being paid by the hauliers rather than by the taxpayer. That brings us to the question raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others about the suitability of Ramsgate as opposed to Dover. We are advised by the RSPCA that the

“trade in live animals changed to Ramsgate from Dover in…2010 as the loading bay in the port of Dover had been damaged.”

The hon. Gentleman suggested that commercial reasons may have been behind this, because of the lobbying by animal welfare groups against the general trade in live animal exports.

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

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about an eight-hour transporting limit, but that would preclude a number of people transporting their animals from west Wales and from mid-Wales to markets in the UK. How would he overcome that problem?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The point was dealt with earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the explanation she gave about exemptions for particular species in regions and areas covers that. I was not setting out my position; I was putting on the record the RSPCA’s position, out of gratitude for the briefing and information they supplied me, so that it is in the public domain for anyone listening, watching or reading afterwards. They will be able to weigh that up in the mix and decide whether it is something that they want to support.

On Ramsgate versus Dover, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire suggested that the decision may well have been a commercial one taken by the ferry operators because they did not want to inflame or outrage public opinion and were aware of the power and influence of the animal welfare lobby against live exports. The perverse outcome is that instead of the animals being transported on vessels that are quicker and better equipped to carry cargo, and having better animal welfare facilities available much nearer the port, the animals have to go to the port of Ramsgate in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Thanet. It is clearly not as suitable and it does not have the facilities. Clearly, the vessel she described was not built for this particular trade. The perversity of the outcome leaves a bad taste; it is a success for those lobbyists who chased the trade from Dover, but the animals have to go through the additional journey time, the additional discomfort and so on. I am not sure that that counts as animal welfare. It certainly does not address animal welfare concerns as I would understand them. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has anything to say about that.

The second issue is the incident in September. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the NFU and I have also received a briefing from it, for which I am grateful. I know that the NFU has written to the Minister, asking a number of questions. Who made the decision to unload? Who decided to kill the animals and which ones to kill? What were the reasons for the kill? Why were the animals unloaded on to an uneven surface? Why were there open drain pits and animals drowning, not just being shot? Were they shot in the right part of the head? What were the skill levels of those involved, who were clearly moved by compassion and tried to do the right thing? When we see the photographs of the blood, the animals and the discomfort, we see that this clearly was not done in a way that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would recognise; it was not done in the professional way that we would all expect. In that instance, there are serious questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I know that there is an inquiry going on and that he might very well be constrained in how much he can share with us, but a commitment to ensure that that is in the public domain as quickly as possible so that we can return to the subject will, I am sure, be welcome.

I hope, too, that the Minister will make comparisons between the trade from the south-west and Wales to Ireland and the trade to the continent. I do not hear the noises from Wales—I do not hear about protests at Holyhead or people complaining about the live trade there, so I assume that that trade works in the way that the Department and industry want it to work in contrast with the way it is operating at Ramsgate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I think I made it clear to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) that we want to get this right, but I am not going to place an artificial deadline on it. All of us, including the hon. Lady’s party, knew that the current arrangements would end in 2013. I repeat that we want to improve on those arrangements, and that it does not help when people make out, in the middle of negotiations, that the talks are foundering or in trouble. We are working very closely with the insurers, and we intend to secure a good deal for those whose houses are at risk of flooding.

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

T5. The export of lamb and beef is a vital part of the Welsh agriculture industry. Is the Secretary of State making any progress in promoting British exports?

Flooding

Simon Hart Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. During my train journey back from Taunton today, I saw graphically the extraordinary volume of water that has landed in such a short time. The areas that have been set aside as soaks have become completely saturated. He is right that having such small-scale schemes down the road can be very helpful and we will certainly look at that.

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

What discussions is the Secretary of State having with his colleagues in the Welsh Government, given that the management of Welsh rivers has a profound effect on the risk of flooding in England?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Rivers do not respect political boundaries. We are keeping in touch with all Ministries and Government agencies.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Simon Hart Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

This is an eagerly awaited moment, and it is a very welcome one for Members from all parties. I suppose I should declare an interest, as some of my relations will benefit from this proposal. Certainly, many of friends will benefit, and most importantly, so will many of my constituents. The shadow Minister was perhaps a little unkind when he criticised the Government for a lack of progress, because progress has been pretty swift and there is a momentum behind the process, as has been recognised and is respected by all those who will, in due course, be on the receiving end of its impact, be that negative or positive.

I want to take a few moments to make two points. First, on the plus side, there has been some discussion of the confidentiality element, whose importance I do not think should be understated. It has concerned many people across different parts of the supply chain, but particularly in farming, where there is some nervousness, not necessarily about the content of the contract, but about its length, as was touched on in the most important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).

Confidentiality is very important, particularly in agriculture, where there is a large debate about long-term investment. There is real concern, particularly in the dairy industry, about entering into investment arrangements that will take, in some cases, 20, 30 or 40 years to reap the necessary rewards. Any degree of confidentiality that can be guaranteed for those producers will in turn secure a better contractual relationship with the retailers and enable them to invest properly in agriculture, which we constantly refer to in this House.

Secondly, I want to touch on the argument that has been made, albeit fairly weakly so far, about whether the proposal constitutes yet more regulation that our agricultural industry will have to put up with. Regulation is frequently misquoted in this House, particularly regulation relating to farming. No farmer I know is opposed to regulation; what farmers are opposed to is unnecessary regulation, poor regulation or regulation that fails to achieve its original objectives. I suggest that the proposal is a form of regulation that does exactly what it says on the tin. It is desired by the agricultural community and so provided that it migrates into law broadly in the manner currently proposed, it should give great reassurance. Therefore, I do not think that we should dwell too long alongside those who dismiss it simply as some kind of intrusive regulation, because it is not. It will make the business of farming and making a living in the countryside all the more secure.

Reference has also been made to the contrast between naming and shaming as a means of deterrent and fining. I must say that I think I am in step with everyone other than the Government when it comes to the view that naming and shaming alone will not be sufficient. If it was, why have I received only one piece of correspondence from any of the 10 supermarkets that might be affected? Waitrose is the only company that has bothered to write to me at all about today’s debate. I do not detect that those in the higher echelons of the so-called big 10 are quaking in their boots. The idea that naming and shaming a supermarket on some website or trade magazine will deter purchasers from going into their stores is, frankly, an exaggeration. If the proposal could provide the adjudicator, rather than just the Secretary of State, with a power to fine more urgently, that would undoubtedly chime with the evidence and submissions that have been provided to us all from countless individuals and organisations.

I hope that the Government will not fall into the trap —I am sure they will not, because this is a good proposal —of believing that they have a monopoly of wisdom on this particular point. I cannot believe that all the trade organisations, individuals, farming businesses and other observers of the process who have written to us are wrong and the Government right. Perhaps I am missing the point. If there is a clever reason why we should not go down this route, will the Minister who responds to the debate explain it in their winding-up speech? It seems to have bypassed not only me, but everybody else with an interest in the issue.

I also hope that we will be careful in managing expectations, particularly those of the agricultural industry. The original idea was for a supermarket ombudsman and it looked like they would have all sorts of powers that the adjudicator will not have. Some thought that that would be a means by which price could be manipulated or guaranteed, so I hope that we can continue to make it clear that this is not a mechanism, nor should it be, that will guarantee a particular price for a product. The measure has been announced in various manifestos and, over time, that red herring has been allowed to stick.

I hope that the Minister will refer to smaller suppliers who might suffer at the hands of retailers that do not fall under the top 10, or big 10, category. Plenty of the producers who are watching our progress with great interest do not supply the big 10, but they might supply the next big 10, so they hope that the measures may rub off in that regard.

Finally—I said that my contribution would be brief—I hope that further attention will be given to the funding model. Rather than continuing with the current model, which is a one-size-fits-all, across-the-board flat fee, a model that more accurately reflects the scale of offences that might be committed by the retailers might be a fairer way of securing the confidence of not only the producer, but the customer. As we all know, the brand is probably the most vital part of the big 10 retailers’ business, but the bottom line is also important, so the question is: what comes first—the brand or the bottom line? This debate has been helpful, particularly, as I have said, the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, which I hope the big 10 retailers will take a long, hard and close look at when Hansard is published tomorrow.

In summation, this is a great moment. It proves that some of the things that we write in our manifestos resonate with the wider public. The issue addressed by the Bill certainly does. It was mentioned in the run-up to the last election and I am delighted that we have got on with it as quickly as we have. Its basis seems to attract widespread support throughout the House and, more importantly, among retailers throughout the UK, particularly in Wales, where this activity is being scrutinised. I hope that we will be able to deliver a result that will please the constituents of that country.

Badger Cull

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I do not know what it is about debates in this House involving animals, but the speech by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) reminded me that we generate much more heat than light during such important debates, which bring out almost the worst of all our characteristics. However many years we try, we will never quite manage to have a coherent, sensible and measured debate involving animals; goodness knows why. Perhaps we can at least try to do so now.

TB is a dreadful human tragedy just as much as it is a dreadful animal tragedy. It is made worse, as we have all admitted today, by political inaction going back over decades. During the course of this debate, at least eight farm animals—probably 10, perhaps 15—have been slaughtered, some of them needlessly. Herds will have been devastated, businesses will have been damaged, families will have been upset—all sorts of consequences will have occurred only in the time that we have been here lobbing the occasional insult across the Chamber at each other. Many of those animals will have been perfectly healthy. Some of them will have been in calf, and some of those, because they were so much in calf, will probably have had to be slaughtered on the yard, in many cases in front of young children. This is the policy that we have now. It behoves all of us, whether we are in favour of or against the cull, to recognise that not doing anything has some very serious consequences.

To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), I wish that some people who are opposed to the cull—they have every right to be so and to make their case—would come and examine at close quarters its real human consequences. I was going to make an offer to Dr Brian May, had he still been in the Public Gallery, to come to Pembrokeshire. He has been there before, of course; he came at the last election to campaign for the Labour party. Let us not think that there is not some politics in this, because there is. I invite Dr May and some of his colleagues to come and not just speak to a farmer over a cup of coffee at a table but to be there when the farmer has to prepare for a 60-day TB test. They will see the moving of the cattle, the stress that that causes to the family and the cattle, the preparation of the machinery and the buildings—all the things that go with that and have to be fitted in around an already busy lifestyle. These things cause stress to those animals, yet people are apparently disregarding that for the purposes of their arguments, which seemingly relate only to badgers.

Then I would like those who oppose the badger cull to sit with us while the farmer waits for the results of the test and these thoughts go through his mind: “Will we be tested positive again? Will more of our animals have to go to slaughter? Will our business be further damaged? Will our family be further upset?” That is a dreadful experience for farmers who have been through it all before, or in some cases have never been through it before, as they wonder whether this is the beginning of the end for their farming business. Several of my constituents—some of them are sitting in the Public Gallery now having come all the way from west Wales to listen, I hope, to some sense in this debate—are seriously wondering whether it is worth continuing in the dairy industry because of the decades of inaction to which I referred.

May I ask the shadow Minister to agree with our policy on this? I hope that we can persuade her to condemn what I consider to be a pretty vindictive attack by the RSPCA on our dairy farmers. I have here a letter from Freedom Food, which says:

“Freedom Food members are required to apply all reasonable non-lethal and humane methods of wild animal exclusion/control—the RSPCA believes it is unacceptable to use lethal methods of wild animal control as routine practice.”

Well, for a start, what is being proposed is not routine practice. To threaten a financial penalty for taking part in this is a breach of the RSPCA’s charitable conditions. It would be helpful if the Opposition would join us in that view. I cannot believe that many Freedom farmers do not at some stage control rats, mice, rabbits, deer, or some other farm pest, and they should not be blackmailed by a charity in this regard.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I sound a note of caution? While my hon. Friend may have a difference with the RSPCA, it is the leading animal welfare charity in this nation, established by a former colleague in this House—William Wilberforce. What we can agree on, I hope, is that we all want to see healthy cattle and healthy badgers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do more—far more than the previous Government, I hasten to add—on getting a vaccine as soon as possible? That would satisfy everybody—farmers and those who care for animal welfare.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I concur with what he says about the RSPCA, which is why I am so annoyed and disgusted by its behaviour in this particular context. I will turn later to his comments about the need for a vaccine.

What we are trying to do is discover the truth, and it is frustrating that others are always trying to avoid the truth. Of course we want to discover what improved cattle movements will do for the control of this disease, of course we want to clamp down on biosecurity and see what impact that has, of course we want to investigate the legal, effective and affordable vaccines that might be out there imminently or some way down the line, and of course—this is completely consistent—we want to ascertain once and for all whether a cull can play an important part in this. I stress what my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said: this not a definitive policy but a pilot to ascertain once and for all whether this particular part of the mix is effective or otherwise.

I am frustrated, as I think are fellow Members, that while we are attempting to examine the benefits or otherwise of a pilot cull that might cull 4,000 badgers—slightly fewer than 1% of the UK total—thousands of farm animals, many of which will be healthy, are dying needlessly. Millions of pounds will be lost, more businesses will be damaged, and more families will be upset. The frustration lies in the fact that opponents cannot get over the hump of believing that if something involves the death of a single animal in any circumstances they will construct an argument around it that will prevent it from happening. We have to be more open-minded. Culling might have a positive effect. We cannot make progress until we accept that there is a case for at least exploring what the implications may be.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West, we in this House can get in a terrible muddle about the difference between cruelty and suffering. It seems that most people look at cruelty as an attribute of human activity, whereas we should be looking at suffering, which is, to some extent, a more measurable scientific judgment. We constantly confuse the two. I ask opponents of the cull this simple question: why is it apparently perfectly satisfactory to continue killing many thousands of farm animals needlessly—one every 15 minutes—whereas culling a relatively small number of wild animals as part of an important experiment is somehow completely unacceptable? We have not got anywhere near to that answer.

Let me finish with a tribute to the British Veterinary Association, with reference to a comment by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—she is not in her place now, but I hope she might read this. In her speech in our debate on circus animals she described the BVA as one of the most respected scientific organisations for animal welfare in this country. I agree. The BVA has assessed the evidence just as we have. It has looked at all the pros and cons and concluded that the proposals before the House are important and should be pursued. I might not be a scientist or understand the science, but I do trust the vets. There is an old saying: “You never trust something which has been doctored, but you can always trust something which has been vetted.” I agree with that. The BVA is a shining example of an organisation that has taken a measured view.

The Secretary of State has taken a brave decision. Let us not think for one minute that he would not have gone down the vaccination route if he could have possibly managed to do so. We owe it to our farmers, our cattle and our badgers to give him the support that he deserves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I want to take the opportunity to remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that it is not in order to refer either to a person or to the Public Gallery. That is quite clear in “Erskine May”. I did not want to interrupt his flow, given the time limits, and I will be loth to interrupt any other Member, unless, after my having reminded them not to refer to the Public Gallery, they proceed to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hart Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We have been over this ground on several occasions during the last few days. We are absolutely clear about the fact that the scientific analysis of the trials conducted by the Government that the hon. Lady supported show a 28% reduction in the culled area. That is the information that we are going on, because it is scientifically based.

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

T3. What steps is the Department taking to deal with ash dieback disease?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. There were reports on the radio this morning about the horrific danger to our 80 million ash trees. We have already launched a consultation on the ground, involving a detailed investigation into whether the disease has taken root in the country. The results of that consultation will be reported to me tomorrow, and I shall discuss it over the weekend with the head of the Forestry Commission. However, on the basis of the evidence that we have seen so far, I intend to introduce a ban on imports and tight restrictions on ash movements in Great Britain on Monday.