Horsemeat

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, and in a way the thrust of the debate is to highlight something of which I think the public are increasingly aware: the gulf between very good activity on the ground carried out by RSPCA inspectors, whom we all know, work with, and value, who do good things in communities, and whose principal function is to deal with animal welfare, and the leadership of the organisation, whose principal function appears to be to deal with animal rights. The animal rights agenda is compromising the animal welfare agenda on the ground, leading to precisely the sorts of example in question.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. At this time of year particularly—post-Christmas, when there is a lot of pressure on RSPCA kennels to look after pets that have been given as Christmas gifts—education is probably the key to the debate. If the RSPCA could spend more money on educating people to understand animal welfare, that money would be better spent than on prosecutions.

[Simon Hart]

There must be balance, and I have said in response to several interventions that there are occasions when prosecutions may be the only way forward. I wanted to compare what goes on in England and Wales with what goes on in Scotland. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals does very good work of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), but is not hampered by also being a prosecuting body, as the RSPCA south of the border is. That relationship seems to work perfectly well, and there is no reason why a similar one should not work for the RSPCA, enabling it to spend more time and money giving people a helping hand.

Food Prices (Planning Policy)

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am delighted to have secured this debate on the effect of domestic land use on food prices.

First, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a farmer in Nottinghamshire, I am of course affected by many of the issues around land use and the price of food.

I hope that Members will forgive me if I start by setting the scene about food prices, because the price of food is a complicated issue that crosses many Departments. I am quite aware that the Minister has responsibility for domestic planning and land use policy, but the issues that I will raise today cover a large number of other Departments. I shall try to keep my speech as focused as I can on the Minister’s responsibilities.

It is fair to say that past food prices have been stable in the recent past. I suppose that we have been fortunate as a nation to have been well fed for a number of years. Since the second world war, we have had a sustained period of level and quite acceptable food prices, but that has started to change over the more recent past. There have been a number of blips recently. In fact, in 2008, we actually saw a period when food prices came down again. We need to make our minds up really about whether this is a sustained issue or something that is just a blip in the pattern of things. In my opinion, we are facing something quite enormous in the challenges before us and the way that food prices will rise. There are a number of reasons for that, not least the price of oil, which is driving the cost for some farmers in their production methods. Anyone who is familiar with agricultural practice will of course recognise that the price of nitrogen fertilisers is based on the cost of oil and that, as their price goes up, the cost to farmers of producing food rises exponentially.

More importantly, what is really driving this process are issues around the world such as climate change, population growth and of course the change in diet for many people in other parts of the globe. Those three challenges are bringing this perfect storm together, which is a real challenge for us in the UK.

Let us look at some of those things. Whether people think climate change is carbon-driven or just something that is in the cycle does not really matter, frankly, because climate change is here to stay and is having an enormous impact on our ability to produce food; it is driving those production challenges.

Population growth, not only in the UK but around the world, is also having a big impact, which will get even worse as people on the other side of the world change to a more western diet. There have always been hungry people on earth, but all of a sudden we have hungry wealthy people who are able to pull food away from the European Union.

I think that we now recognise that an enormous challenge faces us, and the question now is how we in the UK deal with it, because the amount of domestic land that we have available is a flat figure. Without being flippant, we have stopped making land: the amount of land that we have is the amount that we have within the UK. It is imperative that, within the UK, we ensure that we use that land in the most effective way, to make sure that we are well fed and are kept warm. That is where some of the challenges on land use start to be felt.

What are the future threats? Clearly, the debate about biofuels is an interesting one. The use of land for the production of energy is not a new concept. Going back to the 1940s, my grandfather was farming and a third of his land was used for the production of hay to feed the horses that pulled his ploughs. That was, in effect, energy production at its most basic. As we have moved forward, however, farmers have found new opportunities, and as they have found themselves under pressure to increase their incomes, they have certainly looked to energy production to sustain themselves.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that some farmers have found that they get less objection from planners when they submit applications for renewable energy projects than they do for projects that might relate to their own ability to produce food?

[Mr Spencer]

I do, and that is an issue. However, I actually welcome the opportunity for farmers to diversify their businesses, so that they can make them viable, but of course we need to be mindful of the impact. The example of anaerobic digestion is a good one. I welcome anaerobic digestion, as long as it makes use of waste streams that actually are waste streams, because we get something for nothing out of that process. However, what tends to happen, of course, is that farmers build anaerobic digesters but those digesters run much more efficiently when forage maize is put through them rather than a waste stream made up either of slurry, food waste or some other product. If Members were to drive down the middle of Nottinghamshire, they would see that the landscape there today is very different from what it was five years ago.

Rural Communities

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

That proposal is welcome. In some areas, of course, it has been subject to bigger planning obstacles than predicted, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made to the planning process, certainly in England. If my community is anything to go by—this is particularly true in the national park, although I do not want to get personal about the national park—even small developers have to pay a significant sum, almost by way of a hidden tax, to undertake such development, and that is a disincentive. I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s positive message, but there are some negative ones, too, and we need to address them if such proposals are to be universally fair.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a fundamental need to distinguish between protecting and preserving the countryside, which are two different things? To protect the countryside, we need development and change so that communities can expand and look after their schools and shops.

[Simon Hart]

I wish I had thought of that myself because it is such an important point. We are sometimes distracted by the preservation argument, but the countryside is actually all about people, jobs and communities, and the landscape, which we are sometimes fixated by, is only a consequence of the tender stewardship of generations of dedicated enthusiasts of the rural big society. My hon. Friend is right to point out that unless we have the conditions and facilities to encourage that, everything else we, the nation and our foreign visitors admire about the countryside will be compromised.

My next question for the Minister—it is not a sarcastic question—is which bits of the recent Budget does he believe give hope and encouragement to businesses in rural areas? Which bits remind them that they should welcome life under the coalition and let them see some sort of vision arising out of the Chancellor’s recent comments?

In drawing to a conclusion, I want to refer to the views of voters and constituents in west Wales. I do not know whether I am unique in this respect, but voters in my area do not really give a damn where the Prime Minister went to school. They have no interest whatever in who he might or might not have to dinner, and they certainly have no interest in what might or might not be on his tax return. All they want to know is whether the Government are bold, trustworthy and competent, and whether the Government’s values are the same as theirs. Those are the things I get asked about—not all the other fluff and nonsense that floats around this place from time to time—and they probably reflect the views of rural, and indeed urban, people across Britain.

In my short opening remarks, I hope I have been able to provide an absolutely open goal for the Minister to aim at. I hope he can convince us that we can continue proudly to defend the reputation of the Conservative party as the party of the countryside.

Metal Theft

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate, and colleagues from all sides of the House on pushing this issue forward. We have heard many examples of what a terrible crime metal theft can be. I know that my constituents, among others, will be completely taken aback by how bad it can be, and by the mentality of someone who can steal a war memorial or a memorial from a park bench. One has to be a certain type of person to be able to commit such a crime. There are also examples of the crime that put the public at risk. They involve the theft of railway lines, telecommunications lines or electrical supply equipment.

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

Another example, in agricultural areas, is where metal thieves nick gates, which is not only inconvenient, but has the knock-on effect of allowing cattle and horses to get out and cause damage. That costs money, the insurance premiums go up and it all causes massive disturbance.

[Mr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. One cannot underestimate the potentially disastrous consequences of a herd of cattle wandering on to a railway line. Indeed, rural areas can find themselves particularly targeted. He mentioned agriculture, but rural churches have also been targeted, because they are so isolated and are not overlooked by other properties. Edwinstowe church in my constituency has had the lead removed from its roof seven times, which is simply outrageous.

One way of dealing with the problem would be to improve the legislation. However, I would also encourage English Heritage to consider alternatives. English Heritage forces churches to replace the lead, but if we could find a fibreglass replacement that looks like lead, that would solve the problem and deter the thieves, because the value of fibreglass is zero. Indeed, not only have churches in my constituency been affected, but Newstead abbey, the home of Lord Byron, has been targeted, with its gutters and downrights stolen. Again, we are talking about an historic building, owned by the city council, which has taken the decision not to replace the gutters and downrights because it cannot protect the property in the short term. The council will have to leave that historic building in a poorer state of repair, which is an absolute tragedy.

I am therefore happy to support the motion. I hope that the Government will take the firmest and strongest action. Not only do normal members of the public support that, but the scrap dealers I have talked to—the legitimate businesses—also want us to take action. I pay tribute to my constituent Edward Donnington, a local trader who has been constantly lobbying me to try to improve the way in which such trades are recorded. He is a registered scrap dealer who welcomes the Government’s intervention to try to resolve the issue, because his business has also been targeted. He has had people breaking into his yard to steal his lorry and take scrap from his premises. The legitimate scrap dealers are looking to us to take firm action and clamp down on those involved. The only way we can do that is to stop cash transactions and also to have photographic evidence of those who undertake transactions, so that they can be clearly identified at a later date if something goes wrong.

Before I finish, I want to mention what has been happening in Nottinghamshire. I pay tribute to Nottinghamshire county council trading standards and Nottinghamshire police, as they have taken the issue very seriously. They have put together a local group of all the relevant authorities, to take action and, more importantly, to inform each other about what is correct and what is not, because a normal bobby on the beat might not be aware of some of the relevant issues in those scrap yards. For instance, there is only one registered scrap dealer in Nottinghamshire who can deal in, as it were, railway steel, and only one who is registered to deal in telecommunications cable from British Telecom. If such cable is found in any scrap yard other than the one that is registered, it is clearly in the wrong place and a crime has been committed. It is all about informing those authorities so that there is cross-information, as it were, and ensuring that when someone sees something out of line, they take firm action.

I hope that this debate is a step in the right direction, and that the Government grab this issue and drive the frankly terrible people involved out of the industry.

Biotechnology and Food Security

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Spencer]

I am grateful to you for your intervention, Mr Streeter.

World energy prices are very much linked to the issues that we face. The simple fact is that the price of petroleum directly affects the price of agricultural fertilisers and pesticides and has a knock-on effect on them.

Energy production itself requires land usage. Erecting a wind turbine takes out land that could be used for agricultural food production. The erection of a refinery takes land out of agricultural food production and uses it for industrial purposes. More importantly, as we move towards sustainable energy sources, such as bioethanol and biodiesel produced from rape seed, we will be using agricultural crops to produce those biofuels, taking land out of food production and putting it into energy production. That might seem like a wonderful, modern technology and a wonderful, modern thing to do, but when my grandfather started farming in the 1930s, 30% of his land was used to produce oats, which were the energy source for the horses that he used to pull the ploughs. There is, therefore, nothing new in farmers using land for energy production. What has changed, however, is the number of people we have to feed and produce for. The changes will be quite dramatic, and we need to make sure that we have technologies available to assist us.

The Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, said:

“by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water.”

Those are dramatic statistics. If we are to solve such problems, we really will have to set our stall out and meet those challenges. I hope that we all recognise that there are enormous challenges out there.

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he is putting the case. One area of influence that has not been touched on is the UK media’s attitude to some of the topics he has discussed. Does he have a view on whether their attitude, particularly to developing technologies, has been a hindrance and has impacted negatively on our farmers’ ability to meet the challenges he has set out?

[Mr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says is true, and the purpose of today’s debate is to have a much more mature, science-based, focused discussion, which looks at the facts rather than the hysteria. My hon. Friend will recall headlines such as “Frankenstein foods”, which do nothing to inform people, and only make them scared of new technologies. To a certain extent, that is human nature. I stand here today unsure myself as to whether these new technologies will assist us. My point, however, is that we need to have the debate, to look at the facts and to explore the opportunities to see whether they offer a solution to the problems we face.

The human race has always been scared of new technologies. If we went back in history to the first time a surgeon suggested doing a heart transplant, we would see the furore that that caused. It was very dramatic to take a heart from one human being and transplant it into another human being. That was quite scary at the time, but it is now run of the mill. As a Member of Parliament, I am lobbied by people who say that we need to improve organ donation and to make sure that we are all informed about it. The technology is accepted and warmly embraced.

To an extent, we are going through the same debate with stem cells, because people are concerned about them and about whether they can assist us. Of course the human race is sometimes scared of change, but we have always been quite adaptable. In the end, we get there, we embrace technologies and we make use of them. That is why we have been so successful as a species at looking after ourselves.

I want to draw attention to Sir Norman Borlaug, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work in changing wheat varieties and improving the way in which we feed ourselves. Many Members have mentioned the fact that we have been able to feed ourselves since the second world war, and we have done a very good job of that. Sir Norman Borlaug was the lead figure in the field. After the second world war, wheat yields were very low. As part of a long and painful process, Sir Norman used a paintbrush to cross-pollinate different varieties of wheat. He was able to take the correct strains from one variety and put them into another. That made the wheat yield vastly more per acre. It also made varieties shorter so that they did not fall over. As I said, we were able to feed Europe; we were able to keep what is now the European Union well fed. That process took a long time. We are talking about tens of years to make advancements in the science.

I am led to believe that genetic modification can speed up that process of genetic change. We have been doing such things for a long time. We have been changing the genetic make-up of those varieties through the long and laborious process of cross-pollination. Genetic modification can speed up that process and lead to advances that will reduce the disease susceptibility of those varieties and make them easier to grow and more drought-resistant. That has to be a good thing. At this stage, it is worth recognising that the genie is out of the bottle. Countries such as the USA, Canada and Brazil are using these technologies. Those crops are being grown in other parts of the world, where technological advancement is starting to move faster than it is here.

It is suggested that yields could increase between 6% and 30% using the same amount of land. If we were able to harness that technology, we could increase yields by 30%. Given the figures and the global changes that we are experiencing, even that degree of advancement might not be enough to keep us all fed to our accustomed level. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned fertilisers, a subject that will prove important as we move forward. Imagine a technology able to produce a wheat variety that had the same root structure as lucerne, which is nitrogen-fixing. Lucerne—and clover, which is very similar—takes nitrogen from the atmosphere, absorbs it into its leaves and produces nitrates in its root structure.

Outdoor Learning

Debate between Simon Hart and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The difficulty with health and safety legislation is that we are trying to create a society where risk is eliminated, but no such thing is possible; risk can be limited and managed, but it cannot be eliminated. My hon. Friend highlights that point well.

In 2008, the most recent year for which we have decent figures, 53% of six to 15-year-olds did not go on a single school trip. A further depressing thought is that over the past 10 years, there has been only £4.5 million of funding for that concept. That is in stark contrast to the music manifesto, for example, which attracted £332 million of funding in 2007. About 97% of teachers believe that it is important for children to learn about the countryside within the national curriculum, and 85% of young children and their parents agree.

Some teachers cannot do what they would like because their school or local authority will not fund their cover when they take children on a trip. That is the “rarely covers” conundrum, and perhaps it goes to the heart of the debate. Under qualified teacher status 30, trainee teachers are asked only to “recognise opportunities” for out-of-classroom learning. It is a weak standard, but even that is not being reached by some initial teacher training providers.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the barriers that stops teachers having the confidence to take kids out of school and into the countryside, to pursue an education about rural life, is that they do not have access to resources and knowledge? Is he aware of the charity FACE, Farming and Countryside Education, based at Stoneleigh in Warwickshire? It offers teachers resources, knowledge and teaching aids to help them form educational lessons and partake in rural education.

[Simon Hart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of that charity and the good work that it does. I am also aware of countless other charities that offer similar, if not identical, services.

I stated earlier that this debate was not about the town versus the countryside. Indeed it is not, and we must be careful not to fall into the trap, as I have myself, of seeing the only benefit of outdoor learning to be that of teaching urban children about rural ways. My hon. Friend’s intervention makes it clear that plenty of people are enthusiastic about reaping the benefits of outdoor learning, but cannot do so either because of insufficient funding through the charitable sector, or because of obstacles due to health and safety legislation, bureaucracy or Government funding.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she consider reviewing whether current teacher training provides new teachers with the skills to lead outdoor learning activities in the first place? Secondly, will she review the “rarely covers” guide to residential visits and fieldwork, and look at whether part of the pupil premium may be used for that purpose?

Emerging evidence points to the direct and indirect health benefits of outdoor learning, including personal well-being and—the latest catchphrase—“happiness.” The current gaming epidemic does not lend itself to our mission of stirring a child’s interest in the outside world. A staggering 53 computer games were released on to the market in April 2010, and it is easy to deduce that we cannot leave it to the children to discover the outside world. It is our responsibility to take them there.

Activities such as walking, cycling and riding can burn up to 380 calories an hour. Green spaces can stabilise anger in young people, which can help prevent antisocial behaviour. Outdoor education could therefore play a key role in reducing the amount of permanent and fixed exclusions for physical and verbal abuse in schools, which currently run at the eye-watering level of 300,000 cases per year.

Outdoor learning could also help to reduce the cost of youth crime and obesity, which is estimated at an even more staggering and depressing £5 billion per annum for the taxpayer to pick up. Of course, evidence is an essential prerequisite of any progress that we make on this topic. I shall start with what Ofsted had to say about it. In 2008, Ofsted published a thematic report that stated:

“When planned and implemented well, learning outside the classroom contributed significantly to raising standards and improving pupils’ personal, social and emotional development.”

It went on to recommend that schools and colleges should

“ensure that their curriculum planning includes sufficient well structured opportunities for all learners to engage in learning outside the classroom as a key, integrated element of their experience”

and

“ensure equal and full access for all learners to learning outside the classroom”.

In a similar study in 2006, the National Trust stated:

“We looked at whether schoolchildren’s learning about their local environment would influence the way they treat it.

We found that not only was this the case, but high-quality out-of-classroom learning also influenced how children behave and the lifestyle choices they make.

It shows the potential for school trips not just to change children’s lives, but the lives of whole communities.”