Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Simon Hoare and Kerry McCarthy

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

That depends on the criteria set. I have heard 120 days mentioned as a possible benchmark.

The problem is not just that the information is not being made available; one of the main reasons I tabled the amendment is that there is quite a lot of misleading marketing that gives consumers the impression that goods are higher welfare when they are not. A pork product from a factory-farmed pig may carry a label that says something like “farm fresh” or “all natural”. Packaging can carry images of green fields or woodlands. I was praising Tesco this morning for its work on food waste and modern slavery, but there was an issue, either earlier this year or last year, where Tesco meat and fresh produce had been labelled with the names of British-sounding farms, such as Boswell Farms beef steaks and Woodside Farms sausages, and it transpired that not only did those farms not exist, but in some cases the produce had been imported. That is certainly misleading the public, and I might use stronger language to describe that behaviour.

[Simon Hoare]

I have concerns about an arbitrary number of days being set. Broadly, farmers bring stock in and out as the weather permits. If there is an arbitrary number of days, it is the target that dictates the welfare, not the requirements of the animal. There is a tendency in the narrative of veganism to focus, perfectly properly, on animal welfare. Would the hon. Lady agree that, in that drive for transparency, many consumers would be very interested to know the health of the soil in which their vegetables were grown and how much insecticide and pesticide was used on them during production?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have no idea why the hon. Gentleman is bringing vegans into the debate, as they do not eat any of this produce and, therefore, I would imagine, are not particularly concerned with where it comes from. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by one of his hon. Friends who is a dairy farmer, recommended twice in 2018

“that the Government introduce mandatory method of production labelling”

to support the existing market for higher welfare products and to encourage more producers to move into that higher value market.

I met various members of the National Farmers Union in Gloucestershire during the mini recess. Most were higher welfare beef and dairy farmers who struggled to get a decent price and to get recognition of the fact that they put more care into producing their products. They are keen to support this proposal, so the idea that it is some sort of vegan crusade is a bit tedious, to be honest, but also wide of the mark.

[Simon Hoare]

I was not intending to be tedious; perhaps my tedium was unintentional. I was trying to tease out the hon. Lady’s answer, which I presume be “yes”, on whether clear and relevant information about the type of food production is of use to consumers. That was the point I was driving at. I was slightly concerned to hear the hon. Lady say that because vegans do not eat meat, they have no interest in the conditions in which animals are raised. I would have thought that would unite everybody in this country, whether they eat those animals or not.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Of course vegans are interested in that, but they are not the consumers who are trying to decide between one pack of sausages and another—unless they are Linda McCartney vegetarian sausages, for example.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to take this whole thing off on a tangent. During the referendum campaign, the Government blamed the European Union for tying their hands, making them unable to move further on production labelling. The Farm Produce (Labelling Requirements) Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main)—I remember it well. Making progress on production labelling was put forward as one of the reasons why we should leave the European Union, and that Bill was supported by a number of Brexit-supporting Tory MPs.

At the beginning of this year, the Secretary of State announced at the Oxford farming conference that the Government were considering extending mandatory labelling, and when that issue was highlighted in the “Health and Harmony” Command Paper, it received very positive feedback. Respondents to the question, “Should government set further standards to ensure greater consistency and understanding of welfare information at the point of purchase?” were overwhelmingly in favour: 72% either said “Yes” or “Yes, as long as it does not present an unreasonable burden to farmers.” As I said, we need to have a discussion about what producers need to do if they are to be deemed higher welfare, pasture fed, and so on. No matter what sort of scheme we have, some hurdle will have to be met, but setting those rules is obviously a matter for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, I do not. I am aware of that move, but I do not think that people are remotely misled. Nobody is going to buy a vegetarian sausage thinking that it has pork in it. It is the same with soya milk and almond milk—everyone knows perfectly well that they have nothing to do with dairy cows. We are underestimating the intelligence of the British consumer if we think that they are going to be misled by things like that.

[Simon Hoare]

Can I share with the hon. Lady my absolute speechlessness when a set—if that is what you call them—of vegetarian sausages arrived on a lunch plate that I had ordered? The menu only said “Glamorgan sausages”; it did not say that they were vegetarian, so one can be misled through the use of the word “sausage.” I think that the French are on to something here.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps that says more about the hon. Gentleman’s ability to read a menu.

Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Simon Hoare and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Drew]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and we can disagree about what is Stalinist. Why did the Government call their White Paper “Health and harmony”? Why did they not just call it “Farming and harmony”? We all did our consultations, maybe more in oral form than in written form in some cases. Why did we all say, “The Government are on to something here, having linked together environment, food and health”? As we have discussed this morning, they already have some difficulties with food, but they have an even bigger difficulty with health, particularly public health.

This is a very minor amendment that would provide an additional sub-clause, supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses to ensure public access to healthy, local food, which we have not stressed. We are very much in favour of local food chains as an alternative to the globalisation of the food market, because we think it is very important that people have access to good, local food that is sustainably produced. That is very minor. It is just adding a sub-clause, which would do things that presumably the Government want to do, given their public health strategy. If they do not want to do it in this part of the Bill, where will the strategy have any bite? We should argue the case that public health is important to an agriculture Bill, and we make no apologies for pushing the issue. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has to say about her amendment. We believe this is important and should be in the Bill, and this debate is the start.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely support my hon. Friend and his amendment 51, but my amendment 70 is a bit more detailed. I will talk first about the public health, food-related issues.

As has been said, the White Paper is called “Health and Harmony” yet there is a conspicuous lack of information about what the Government want to do to improve public health. Almost 4 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with diabetes, 90% of those type 2, which is very much associated with diet. That costs the NHS £12 billion a year, which is a good enough argument to try to do something about it.

Childhood obesity has been mentioned. We now have more children classified obese at the age of 11 than in the US, which is definitely cause for alarm. Recent research by Kellogg’s described food deserts in our most deprived areas, where it is really difficult for families to get their hands on affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. I think two of the top five areas are in south Bristol.

I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food and a member of its children’s future food inquiry, which recently published data. Members might know that the Government have an “Eat Well” guide, which is meant to indicate what a healthy diet looks like. It is not used as it should be, in that it does not inform public procurement in the way that it should, but it is out there. The inquiry’s report found that almost 4 million children in the UK live in households that would struggle to meet the official nutritional guidelines. They would not be able to afford to eat in line with what the Government recommend as a healthy diet.

My amendment also mentions the overuse of antibiotics in farming. That is not the use of antibiotics to treat illness; it is usually the result of intensive farming, with the routine over-prescription of antibiotics to compensate for the fact that animal husbandry is not as good as it could be. That is causing a public health crisis. The former Chancellor, now editor of the Evening Standard, went to the States and made a big speech to highlight that this is a public health crisis for anybody who is reliant on antibiotics.

We have seen the rise of superbugs in the NHS. I have a niece with cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis patients rely on periodic applications of antibiotics, which are fast becoming ineffective. We need to take serious steps to reduce their routine use in farming. The amendment also refers to reducing the use of chemicals and pesticides on farms, and the associated health risks have been mentioned.

I very much look forward to the Government’s food strategy document. I was originally told that the outline document would come forward just before Christmas, but I have heard rumours that is has been put back further and may even have been shelved. I do not want to rely on reassurances that all this will be dealt with in a food strategy document.

I appreciate the concerns that we cannot necessarily deal with what the finished product would look like, but we could look at measures such as grants for marketing, infrastructure for on-farm processing, creating local farm supply chains and what the Minister mentioned earlier about having food production around cities, so that it would be easier to get healthy food into cities. We could also look at an equivalent to the EU fruit and vegetable aid scheme. Public procurement is incredibly important as well. There is a lot more I could say on the subject. There is a chance in the Bill to ensure that people have healthier diets. It is crisis that we cannot just ignore.

[Simon Hoare]

I oppose the amendment. There is no doubting the correctness of the baseline of the data that the shadow Minister has put forward. We are facing an obesity crisis.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Simon Hoare and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have visited quite a few farms. The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point. Anyone could take me to a farm with happy cows or happy sheep, by his definition, but that does not mean that there are not places where abuse occurs—where animals are not kept in the best possible conditions or treated well. That is exactly the point I have just made. I accept that we have high animal welfare standards generally, but I am also saying that we should not be complacent. As for the vegan thing, I have been a vegan for 27 years, so the hon. Gentleman would have to do a lot more to change my mind than simply show me his cows.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Member for North Dorset wants to interrupt. He said earlier that we need dairy to be healthy. I do not know quite how I have managed to stay on my feet for this long; clearly, I ought to be wilting away, languishing and looking pale and anaemic.

[Simon Hoare]

I will leave that question as being rhetorical. I do not think it is complacent to say that we have the highest standards. It would be erroneous and complacent to say there were no breaches of those standards, but it is a statement of fact that we have the highest standards. We all appreciate that not everybody adheres to them, and there are responsible penalties for those who are identified as breaching those standards. However, it is not complacency to say we have the highest standards in the world; it is a statement of fact.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I think it is complacent to just respond, whenever questions about animal welfare are raised, that we have the highest standards, because that means that we are not engaging with the problem being brought to our attention, namely the breaches. If I raise the conditions on a mega-farm where there has been an undercover investigation showing all sorts of horrendous conditions—and in some instances even cases of cannibalism, which I have seen footage of recently—I do not want the response to be: “We have the highest animal welfare standards.” To any problem across the piece that we ever bring to the Government’s attention, we could say, “Well, we’re doing really well 90% of the time.” That is not what we are here to do. We are here to highlight where the system has gone wrong and to try to encourage people to do better.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not come back about whether I am healthy or not. Perhaps we should challenge each other to something—

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady radiates health from every pore. I suggest that she would radiate still further were she to have dairy in her diet, but her hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) does not radiate anything.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West is now vegan as well—in fact, three of the four Bristol MPs are vegan. She is completely vegan and a model of good health.

The second condition for receiving funding should be membership of a comprehensive assurance scheme. The RSPCA assured scheme covers all aspects of welfare and has genuinely high standards and rigorous monitoring arrangements. I am not so sure about other assurance schemes, which have been criticised. We need to clarify what the criteria would be.

I want to finish by talking about a few things that Compassion in World Farming has mentioned as additional standards and perhaps the sorts of things that farmers should get additional funding for. On pigs, it says:

“Funding should be available for farmers who achieve intact tails”—

that is, neither docked nor bitten tails. It continues:

“Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and others as a reliable outcome based indicator of good welfare.”

In Lower Saxony, I am told, farmers are paid €16.5 per undocked pig under its curled tail bonus scheme. Is that the sort of thing that we could look at rewarding farmers for here?

Flooding

Debate between Simon Hoare and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I need to make some progress. As this is a devolved matter, we cannot debate it in the detail we would like today, but it is important that the motion recognises the problems with how flooding is being dealt with and the seriousness with which it is being taken in Scotland. That needs to be addressed, which is why we put it in the motion.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

I want to make some progress. As I have said, there are about 27 Back-Bench contributions to get through, plus the winding-up speeches, and we also need to hear from the Environment Secretary, so we really need to make some progress.

DEFRA and the Treasury still refuse to provide any long-term certainty on maintenance. All the Environment Secretary could tell us yesterday was that the maintenance budget this year was £171 million. She is ignoring the EA’s advice that flood protection requires £800 million per year, which, with the amount spent on capital, would mean an average annual maintenance expenditure of £417 million.

We cannot continue with DEFRA’s panicked, piecemeal approach. The coalition abandoned the cross-party consensus on sustained investment following the Pitt review, and after the 2014 floods, the Prime Minister chose to put all his trust in the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) and his Cabinet Committee—a Committee that was quietly disbanded once the floodwaters receded and the media attention subsided. The promised annual review of national resilience never materialised. I ask the Environment Secretary again, as I did yesterday: how are we to have confidence in yet another review led by the right hon. Gentleman? I notice he is not here this afternoon, just as he was not here yesterday. Will the Environment Secretary tell us whether he is currently in Yorkshire or Lancashire, visiting flood victims, or perhaps he has more pressing matters to attend to?

There is no sense that the Government truly understand how people have been affected or the challenge they face in rebuilding their lives and businesses. Members across the House spoke eloquently yesterday about how their constituents had suffered and how their fears had not gone away, so why could the Secretary of State yesterday only give vague assurances about considering the Leeds defence scheme? The Prime Minister today dodged the same questions. Why did the Environment Secretary not review earlier whether her predecessors made the wrong decision?

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am going to make progress, without taking interventions. I am sure the hon. Gentleman can intervene on somebody else later—perhaps the Secretary of State can answer his question.

Why did the Secretary of State not review earlier whether her predecessors made the wrong decision to scrap the planned scheme in 2011? Why, with Members of all parties urging the Government to apply to the European solidarity fund could the Secretary of State say only that the Government were considering it? She claimed that they had not yet applied because it could take months for the funds to come through, so why is she dithering and adding to the delay? Why does she not just get on with it?

Why are the Government refusing to implement the Pitt review recommendation on the fire service? The service has lost thousands of firefighters since the 2007 floods. Does the Secretary of State not think that the pressures on the service and the extraordinary professionalism it displays merit including flood response as a statutory duty? Should not our fire and rescue service be fully supported?

Everyone anxiously watching the flood alerts needs to know that everything is being done to protect communities from the floods and to reduce the risk. As the Environment Agency has said, the UK needs a complete rethink of flood defences. This must include better management of river catchments from land use in our upstream areas to estuaries and lower land areas.

The last Labour Government developed some really innovative thinking, agreed to all the recommendations of the Pitt review and had started the process of implementing them. We also passed the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, but the coalition then wasted the next five years. Labour’s Acts gave the Government powers to require land managers to protect assets for flood protection, for example, so why have this Government not made better use of those powers? Will the Secretary of State tell us why the Government delayed and weakened requirements in the Act for sustainable drainage in new and existing developments?

Yesterday, the Environment Secretary welcomed Dieter Helm’s excellent paper, “Flood defence: time for a radical rethink”, which highlights the critical role played by land use in both causing and helping to alleviate flooding, especially the protection of natural capital in upstream areas. Pickering in North Yorkshire has attracted some attention this week, highlighting how efforts to slow the flow of water from the hills prevented the town from flooding this time. I know that that is not the only example. The Environment Secretary has said that she wants the results from Pickering to be used more widely, so how is she going to make that happen?

Dieter Helm also highlighted the thorny issue of how some agricultural policies and associated subsidies pay little or no attention to flood risk dimensions. The examples he gave included greater exposure to rapid run-off from the planting of maize; the burning of heather to improve grouse moors, as it reduces the land’s retention of water; and farming practices in the upper reaches of river catchments. Helm sets out how adaptation measures in these areas, such as the planting of trees, could have some of the greatest potential benefits for reducing flood risk.

In response to a question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) yesterday, the Environment Secretary talked about getting better value for money for DEFRA funding on the environment and countryside stewardship schemes. Will she clarify those comments today? Does she think that some of these financial incentives are not fully aligned to achieving flood resilience objectives? As the National Farmers Union says, services provided by farmers that protect urban areas downstream are at present “unrewarded and often unplanned”.

In urban and developed areas, sustainable drainage systems could make a positive difference, but progress has been slow and the scope for local authorities to make progress on flood risk management strategies seems limited. As the Climate Change Committee reported, many are yet to finalise their strategies, despite that having been a legal requirement for the past five years.

We need a cross-departmental approach to flood prevention and adaptation. Some 1,500 new homes a year are built in areas of high flood risk. We have seen how road networks, hospitals, schools and tele- communications cannot withstand the flooding. Will the Secretary of State ensure that infrastructure planning takes into account the increasing flood risk?

Just as the Government cannot neglect English regions, we need to work across the UK on climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Welsh Government have this week provided £2.3 million for flood-hit communities in Wales, and we know that flooding has caused havoc across Scotland, yet there are fears about significant cuts to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

People are not interested in more excuses or empty promises. Put simply, they want to know that this Government are doing everything they can to prevent such flooding from happening to them again. We cannot stop the rain, but we can stop at least some of the devastation it causes. People are living in fear of floods and they need reassurance; I hope that they will hear precisely that from the Environment Secretary.