Flooding (Somerset)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the next thing written on my piece of paper is “A361”. I do not like the idea of Taunton being cut off from civilisation and we need to do something about the A361, but the question is, what? I am not convinced that simply raising the level of the road along its entire length is the most sensible use of funds, but we need to do something in combination with the sluice, which I will come back to in a moment. We need to mobilise whatever funding is available—whether from Network Rail, which otherwise needs to do something about its track across the levels, or the roads agencies—and use it in the wisest way to ensure that the road is not closed again and that we all have easy access to the pub at Burrowbridge, which served as such a useful headquarters for the media during the flooding.

Are we going to see the replacement of the necessary pumping facilities? Some have already been done, but we brought in those massive pumps during the crisis and they were an extremely good thing. We need to ensure that they are available when we need them, and without having to ask, as we need a boat to be available when necessary. Such facilities need to be built.

That brings me to the two big ticket items. One is the Parrett sluice, which I agree entirely with, having looked into the matter. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset knows, I was initially sceptical as to whether the sluice would include improvement for my area—it clearly would for his—but I am now convinced that it would. Preventing the influx of water from the Bristol channel at high tide, thereby ensuring that we can drain away water from the upper reaches of the levels, is crucial. We need the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce the funding in the autumn statement—no doubt about it, we need it there in black and white. When we have that, we will be satisfied that the Government are keeping their promises to the people of Somerset.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

While we are on the subject of sluices, will the Minister address the problem of Bleadon sluice, bearing in mind that we have all talked about how any approach has to be for the whole catchment area? My concern is with the Axe and Brue rivers; there is a need for dredging on the Brue, but my most important concern is the Axe, which drains out into the northern part of my patch and over towards Weston-super-Mare. Bleadon sluice was closed by the Environment Agency, which put a red notice on it in 2009. There has been a bundle going on—no one will take responsibility. I was told earlier this year that the sluice was going to be fixed at some point during the year, but we are a long way through it and nothing has happened. Will the Minister address that, since we are on the subject of sluices?

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot divorce the issues of the Parrett and Tone from those of the Axe and Brue. That is why the next ask is equally important: setting up the Somerset rivers authority, to absorb the interests of the existing internal drainage boards and to create real capacity to manage our complex water systems appropriately and with the benefit of local knowledge. That will not happen unless we have a revenue stream to support it, which in turn will not happen unless the Department for Communities and Local Government realises that Somerset is an exception and does not fit its rules. The Department will have to give way to establish what is already the case in some parts of the east of England—a separate levy to fund the maintenance we know to be necessary. Again, that is an ask to which the answer must not be no, because otherwise we will not have done our job.

Will the Minister also update us about how the common agricultural policy reforms as implemented in England—the pillar two payments, in particular—will be used to encourage water retention, the sort of sustainable use of land that will reduce the amount of water entering the lower reaches of the levels at the right time? That is a key component, whether it involves reforestation or simple changes in land use, to enable us to hold more water at higher levels, releasing it slowly when it can get away.

We need a balance between the environment and the community, including the agricultural community. The environment of the levels is precious. I will not have it said that the environmental benefits of the levels do not matter, because the levels are irreplaceable—if we allow them to drown, they die. Therefore, it is in our interests as environmentalists, as well as representatives of our community, to ensure that the balance is created. As I have said often, flooding 3-feet deep for three weeks is fine. That is what we expect in Somerset; it is the levels way. Flooding 10-feet deep for 10 weeks is unacceptable; that is when people are in difficulties, businesses and communities die, and vegetation dies as well.

I hope that the Minister will give as many answers as he can. We will excuse things not having been completed by next winter, provided that we have clear intent that they are under way. After all the promises that we have been given and all the efforts made, however, we will not excuse things simply being said only for nothing to happen. We will have flooding again this winter—that is a fact—but if it is as bad as it was last winter and we can turn around and say, “The Government have failed to do all those things that they said they were going to do,” then, frankly, the Government will have to answer not only to the people in this Chamber, but to an awful lot of people in Somerset, who will be very angry indeed.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and to have the opportunity to respond to the debate.

I hope to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) with my response, as far as I can on the day. As he said, he has raised the issues consistently, since long before my time with this portfolio. More recently, we have had a number of opportunities for debate inside and outside Parliament. He has been entirely consistent, as have my other hon. Friends present today, and they have worked together as a team, along with our right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who has also raised the issues with me.

I have only a short time to respond, so I will not set out everything to do with the extreme weather that we experienced, although it is important to mention that the effects in Somerset were replicated in other parts of the country. Yesterday I was debating with right hon. and hon. Members from the Humber estuary. My hon. Friends here today will be delighted to know that those Members were only requesting £880 million for the schemes identified in that area. We are not short of positive ideas to deal with flooding around the country.

The specific issues affecting Somerset are not so much to do with the large numbers of properties flooded—as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said, in other areas a much larger number flooded—as with the volume of the water and its duration, producing the longer term economic impacts on the communities affected. There was in excess of 65 million cubic metres of floodwater, covering an area of 65 sq km. Exceptionally, that floodwater stayed on the levels for more than 12 weeks.

The Environment Agency did an excellent job in carrying out the single largest pumping operation ever undertaken in Somerset. As my hon. Friend said, the emergency services, the volunteers and all the other groups from local communities and from across the country who offered assistance did a magnificent job in some very difficult conditions. In addition to the 40 permanent pumps, the Environment Agency mobilised a further 24 temporary units, increasing the ability to pump by more than 150%, although there is an interaction between the tidal nature of the catchments and the ability to get the water out into the sea, which my hon. Friend considered when talking about the sluice. I want to make it clear that there are no plans to reduce the number of Environment Agency front-line flood and coastal risk management posts. That issue has been raised in the past.

On my first visit to the Somerset levels with my hon. Friend during the episodes of winter flooding there, the clear ask from the community was for dredging of the rivers. I came back to the Department determined that we should re-examine the case for doing so. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs followed up with a visit and asked all the local organisations to meet and to put an action plan together, with support from officials in the Environment Agency and DEFRA. That happened in a remarkably speedy six weeks. I chaired the first meeting and returned later to hear about some of the progress. We now have the action plan, whose delivery is crucial for the future of the levels.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I will give way briefly, but I do not have much time.

[Tessa Munt]

It is a brief point. Will the Minister make absolutely certain that DEFRA officials stay engaged with the process, because an internal drainage board cannot do things on its own? It is crucial that DEFRA officials carry on working with the boards.

[Dan Rogerson]

DEFRA officials and indeed Ministers will remain involved. The Secretary of State was in the area again recently to look at progress. He has been appointed flood envoy for Somerset and Wiltshire by the Prime Minister, as I have for Cornwall. We maintain an interest in the delivery of the plan which, as my hon. Friend says, is crucial. Money has been made available from the Department for Transport, DEFRA and the Department for Communities and Local Government. For example, an additional £12.3 million from the Department for Transport has been made available to the county council to help roads recovery.

I want to pick up on some of the issues in the action plan and the progress that has been made against that plan. An important element is resilience, which is perhaps slightly more intangible than dredging and hard defences but is important. The Somerset civil contingencies partnership is providing a dedicated programme of targeted support to help people, farms, businesses and neighbourhoods to recover, including by accessing the support and advice that we have made available. They are working hard on plans to increase resilience in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said, flooding will happen again, so we must ensure that communities have what they need at their disposal. That is particularly so for people who have moved to the area and may not have been through this before, unlike the old hands who have and know about resilience and how to support one another.

Implementation of the action plan has started with the dredging of the Rivers Parrett and Tone. It started when the banks were stable and safe enough to support the weight of the heavy equipment, when local access permission had been sought and preparations made for receiving the excavated silt. The dredging is progressing well and is on target to be completed by the autumn. The plan is to dredge 8 km of river; so far 1.7 km has been completed and the number of gangs has increased from two to six.

Work is in hand to find alternative ways of getting water to flow from the Parrett catchment area by increasing the capacity of the River Sowy and the King’s Sedgemoor drain so that water can be pumped more easily and be diverted to Dunball where extra pumps are working. The footings have been made permanent so we can call on them if necessary. That will lower the levels in the River Parrett sufficiently to enable the pumping stations to be operated, helping to lower water levels on the moors around Langport, and to a lesser extent around West Sedgemoor, Curry moor and North moor.

The Environment Agency is currently scoping this work and hopes to appoint a consultant by the end of this month who will work with communities and professional partners to agree aims and to include them in the development of the options. By the autumn, the agency expects to have assessed a range of options to see what is feasible. Partnership funding will be needed to build the scheme. Further key action is the construction of a barrier or sluice to deal with the impact of a rise in sea level and to protect Bridgwater from flooding, and to look at future development.

On Friday 6 June, the Environment Agency, with Sedgemoor district council, organised a technical meeting to discuss various options for the type of barrier that could be used. The meeting was attended by 60 people who received presentations from experts from across the country who have been involved in the design of other flood defence barriers. The long-term vision for Bridgwater was also discussed. A group will review these options and compile a report by September. That report will contribute to an informed decision on the preferred option.

The Environment Agency estimates that it will be three to five years before construction starts and that it will take two years to complete notwithstanding discussions on funding, to which my hon. Friend is keen to draw attention. If we have a plan by September, that will allow serious consideration of the funding options.

Under the action plan, a new Somerset rivers board is being set up. It will have greater control of and responsibility for work to maintain water and flood risk management in the area. This work is being co-ordinated by Somerset county council, working closely with district councils, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the internal drainage boards, which do such crucial work not just in the Parrett and Tone catchment areas but the Axe and Brue areas.

The Somerset rivers board was discussed at an interim leaders implementation group meeting on 20 June. It was a positive meeting that acknowledged the need for compromises and urgency. The options under review include organisational structures, legislative requirements and funding models, all issues that will need to be discussed by local and national Government to ensure a sustainable model in the future. Proposals being considered include an appropriate catchment-wide funding mechanism to generate additional funds. These proposals will be discussed at the next leaders group meeting on 7 July. When proposals have been agreed, next steps will include consultation and engagement on them. In addition, work is under way to consider raising the road to Muchelney and building a ring-bank flood protection scheme for Thorney. My hon. Friend was keen to make the case for that.

We have made provision through funding such as the farming recovery fund, and 167 applications were received from Somerset by the 27 June deadline. That represents 44% of all the claims. It was available to other areas of the country that experienced winter flooding from early December 2013 to April 2014. The total value of claims from Somerset is over £1.5 million of the money that was made available. Repair and renew grant is also available, and householders and businesses may claim up to £5,000 to establish flood resilience measures on their property. Of the 283 properties that were flooded in Somerset, 219 were in the area covered by Sedgemoor district council. Other councils have also taken that option.

In the few seconds remaining, I should say that I greatly appreciate the leadership that has been shown in communities. This has helped to bridge the gap between local and national agencies. We will continue to focus on delivering the action plan. There are challenges ahead, but if we work together we can overcome them so that that resilient community has a better time in future.

Flooding

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

In addition to DEFRA funding, we are on course to bring in £148 million of additional funding over this spending review period compared with just £13 million in the previous period. This means that some schemes that perhaps would not meet the cost-benefit ratios that we want from national funding will now go forward because local funding has made that possible.

Looking further ahead, we have made an unprecedented long-term six-year commitment to record levels of capital investment in improving defences. Since the beginning of December, our defences have taken a terrible pounding. The extra £130 million that we have committed to pay for emergency repairs will ensure that our long-term improvement plans progress as planned. These future schemes will not lose funding that needs to go towards the repairs that we will make sure happen, and are happening immediately.

Many hon. and right hon. Members have spoken and I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has clearly volunteered to take a PowerPoint presentation to the Somerset levels on how people there could do a better job and how dredging will have no effect whatever. I wish him well with that. I will be there tomorrow and will extend his offer. If he would like to talk to them, I am sure they would welcome that.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view, however, that we could do more in terms of land management and local solutions to problems. I think that hon. Members across the House would agree with that and it is something we will take forward in catchment management approaches.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) discussed planning and the need to ensure that it takes account of flood risk and floodplains. The Government’s message not to build on floodplains is very clear and we maintain it. Local authorities, which are of course key to responding to these events, also have an incentive to take account of that. Flood Re includes premiums and excesses, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who, as we heard earlier, looks as radiant as ever, was keen to pick up on a number of issues that are, as he knows, devolved to Wales. I am pleased to hear that he is raising them with the Welsh Government. Flood Re is not devolved and I would be happy to talk to him about it if he wants to raise any further issues. I went to university in Aberystwyth and saw the effect on the west coast of Wales. I would very much have liked to have visited as a Minister, but this is a devolved issue and I respect the duties of Welsh Ministers and what they are doing.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned discussions with the Association of British Insurers and a response to a parliamentary question. I want to clarify that the response was not that we have had no discussions with the ABI on this issue. The question was about technological and process improvements to speed up drying out after flooding, and not about flooding generally. We continue to have regular discussions with the ABI. I did so over Christmas and have done so more recently since the recent flooding events.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) spoke movingly of the impact on his constituency. In particular, I took into account his point about the importance of a timely response from the insurance industry. We have addressed that and I am pleased to say that the spirit in which it is approaching the situation is very reassuring. It knows that mistakes were made in previous years and a number of loss adjusters are getting on with work on the ground.

The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) continued his discussion about funding figures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him and offered a meeting at which he would be happy to discuss the issues further. I have set out our position and will do so repeatedly, and I will of course answer any questions the hon. Gentleman puts to me in order to ensure that he has all the information he needs to inform his constituents of the actual picture.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents, as have his colleagues from across Somerset, making sure that what is happening on the levels remains in the public eye and that we get the balance right on all the tools we can use.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am afraid I do not have time, although my hon. Friend has raised these issues consistently too.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) highlighted the great responsibility taken by the Environment Agency and, indeed, all the community action that took place to look after residents in his area and the innovative solutions they came up with.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was clear in saying that there are no simple answers and that it is worth exploring some of the issues relating to farming practices. They will not be appropriate in every area and we will need a range of tools to tackle this.

I particularly welcomed comments made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on the role played by armed service personnel in what was delivered on the ground in her area. I recognise the urgency of some of the issues she continues to raise.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raised transport issues again—we debated them this morning as well. She will have plenty of opportunities during Transport questions and other debates to pursue my colleagues at the Department for Transport with some of her concerns.

Hon. Members from along the east coast, including the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), were absolutely right to say that the Government are taking into account the effects on the whole country and that all the measures being put in place to help the recovery will be available to them too.

I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to discuss the points he raised. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) focused on groundwater, which is a particular problem that will be with us for some time.

I reassure hon. Members that we are continuing the implementation of the Pitt review. The vast majority of recommendations have been implemented. I do not think, therefore, that the formal need to continue reporting is necessary, but we will continue to update the House on anything that still needs to be dealt with.

The Opposition have tabled a motion that we are happy to support in the main. We disagree with some issues, but the important thing today is consensus to tackle the problems and recognise the contributions that people have made on the ground.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

6. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had on further consultation on the decision to relocate the residence of the Bishop of Bath and Wells.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

At the invitation of my hon. Friend, I visited Wells on 25 January to attend a public meeting and listen to the views of local people. I promised that I would report those views to the governors of the Church Commissioners, which I shall do at their next meeting later this month. She also presented a petition at General Synod earlier this week. A number of questions on this matter were also asked and answered at General Synod.

[Tessa Munt]

Bearing in mind that there is unity between churchgoers and those who are not churchgoers, I will quote from a letter that I received last night, which said of the Church of England:

“It is most depressing to see it damaged by its own corporate actions…There are times when I look into the internal workings of the Church of England and despair.”

People understand that the investment arm can make a return on the latest asset of the Church Commissioners, the Old Rectory at Croscombe, by renting it out on the ordinary market. However, may I make a plea for a graceful and sensitive response to the thousands who have registered their disagreement with allowing the new bishop to move in, and for there to be real consultation?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend has made her views on this matter very clear. I have promised that I will report those views to the governors of the Church Commissioners later this month. I am sure that they will reflect carefully on all the representations that have been made on this matter.

Flooding (Somerset)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I remind him that we are protecting significant areas of agricultural land as we speak, but my view of the future, as he has probably picked up, is that many of the low-risk waterways are much better cleaned out and maintained by local landowners, in co-operation with the Environment Agency. That is probably the best way to go.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I hope that the Secretary of State will applaud the fantastic work of the Somerset Community Foundation and its hardship fund, which is helping people who are suffering financial difficulties as a result of the flooding. Does he agree that the whole catchment approach should include the Rivers Axe and Brue and that it should involve dredging, repairing the Bleadon sluice gates, installing more flood gates and more pumps for local protection, and ensuring that we value productive land?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right that they are part of the whole catchment of the levels, and the relevant internal drainage board will be involved in the discussions. As she probably already knows, the River Brue is one of our pilot schemes.

Badger Cull

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful for the lesson on countryside management. Actually the method of control is similar and the activity of the animals is very similar. If the hon. Lady had, as I have, spent many hours studying how they behave at night, in the lights of a vehicle or the lights used by an expert, she might reach another conclusion. Perhaps that is a debate for another day.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Surely it would have been most sensible to mark the ammunition used in the pilot, so that the public could be assured about whether the bullets that were fired reached their target. There has been no such marking of ammunition, so it is not possible to be certain that it did not damage and wound badgers. I have mentioned the issue time and again, and I do not understand why the Department is so loth to do it, so that we know exactly what happens.

[Simon Hart]

The Natural England licensing conditions are clear about the sort of ammunition and weaponry that should be used, and the degree of expertise to be deployed. We all need to wait to see if there was any wounding—let alone what the rate of that was—so I shall not answer the question and I do not suppose the Minister can either.

Opponents of the cull have quite reasonably pointed out that cage trapping can be more effective; but they have also said that it is ineffective, or less effective than it could be. I find that odd. If it is ineffective for the purpose of removal, why should it be effective for the purpose of vaccination? If we can learn anything from what has been said, it is that it is very difficult to trap wild animals, whether to dispose of them with a weapon or to inject them with a vaccine. I do not say that it is not possible. I live almost next door to the vaccination operation that is going on in Wales, and am well aware of the practical difficulties that are being encountered; but we cannot say that trapping badgers to shoot them is ineffective, but trapping them to vaccinate them is effective. That does not wash.

The third myth is that public safety has been compromised. There does not seem to be any evidence. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derby North can come up with hard and fast evidence. Before we bandy scare stories around we need examples. I mentioned the endorsement given by animal welfare organisations in the past few years to the use of high-velocity weapons for the control of other mammals in Britain. It is odd: if it does not pose a public safety issue to put fox control into the hands of someone with a high-powered weapon who knows what they are doing, why should it pose a safety issue when someone engages in precisely the same activity to control badgers, with the same weapon, ammunition and training, in the same place? If someone can answer that question I should be grateful.

The fourth myth is that the cull has increased police costs. The history of the hon. Gentleman in the animal welfare movement is perfectly reasonable, but I venture to suggest that had it not been for animal rights activity—violence, intimidation and damage—carried out in or around the cull areas, there would have been no need for any policing costs. The only policing costs are to do with policing animal rights activity. They have nothing to do with the cost of the cull itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Having watched badgers, I know that when a badger gets TB it goes into the bottom of the sett, dies slowly over a long time and infects other badgers. That is a fact. The disease is painful and must be eliminated one way or another. Surely we can unite around that. It is not something we want in our wildlife or our cattle.

In closing, I want to make one or two points. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the safety of shooting. If it were not safe, we would have seen more incidents in Gloucestershire. My information is that there has not been unsafe shooting and that there has been humaneness. I do not know of any cases of a badger going away to die. Again, if the hon. Member for Derby North, who represents the League Against Cruel Sports, can produce evidence, I would be interested in seeing it. He made many exaggerated claims in his speech.

We must do something about this dreadful disease. Our farmers have to use one of the strictest biosecurity devices in the world to ensure that their cattle are free of TB, and it costs them a great deal of money.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

If we keep imposing those costs on our farmers, vast areas of the south-west—the hon. Lady’s constituency area—will have no beef cattle. We will then import more and more beef into this country and we will lose jobs. That has happened in the pig industry, and it will happen in the beef industry.

[Tessa Munt]

Many farmers in my constituency have an enormous problem with DEFRA and its agencies in respect of taking cattle off farms when they have been proved to be infected according to the criteria. If cattle are waiting on a farm, not isolated, for 21, 22 or 23 days before they are removed, how on earth can we say that biosecurity is at a high level? That is not the case.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Nobody would condone any farmer or anybody breaking the biosecurity regime. In fact, the Government, as no doubt the Minister will tell us this afternoon, have tightened regulations still further so that they are some of the toughest in the world. They are imposing a great deal of economic strain on the farmers who have to implement them.

In closing, I simply say that if we want to import more and more of our food, let us get rid of our cattle industry in the south-west by not doing something about TB. For goodness’ sake, let us do everything that we can with the armoury in our box to see if we can at least reduce it, if not eliminate it.

Fly-Grazing of Horses

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come to the legislative points in a moment.

I wonder whether further guidance on best practice would be useful for local authorities and police constabularies. There might also be innovative and different ways of utilising publicly owned land to keep seized horses.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I wonder whether I might, through the hon. Gentleman, implore the Minister to consider having discussions with his opposite number at the Ministry of Justice? There are prison farms on prison land, and prisoners at a few of them are given the duty of looking after horses as part of their outside work. There are two advantages to that: one is that the horses are cared for, and the other is that the prisoners take responsibility for caring for an animal. This is often the first time they have taken responsibility for caring for anything or anyone, and they develop new skills. That might be a slightly innovative way of looking at the issue.

[Damian Hinds]

I raised the question whether there might be different or innovative ways of using publicly owned land, and I am sure the Minister will have heard that suggestion.

Earlier, we talked about the challenge of traceability; large numbers of horses are not microchipped. Clearly, more enforcement is needed in that regard, and I ask the Minister whether he has any thoughts on how traceability can be better enforced, especially given that free microchipping is available to many people today but is not taken up.

It appears that the existence of a national equine database of some sort is important—it could, at least, make the current system work better. It might be possible to find a simpler, less costly version of the former national equine database to make traceability possible while minimising the attendant additional costs.

Most importantly, we need to make enforcement less onerous; that is the most critical immediate-term challenge, especially given the legislation across the border in Wales. We need to make the removal of horses more straightforward, and there are two, and possibly more, ways we might do that. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) outlined, we could amend the 1971 Act to bring it into line with the best of the private Acts.

Alternatively, we could replicate the legislation going through in Wales. Either way, there needs to be a way to reduce the waiting time, during which owners can claim ownership. In Wales, it has been reduced from 14 days to seven—although seven is not a magic number; we could have another number. Whether the holding period is seven days or whatever, we also need to stipulate that horses do not have to be held on the land they were found on and that they can be held on the enforcer’s land, which puts the onus on the owners to come forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right that such incidents must be reported and that the public play an important part in that. It is frustrating if offences are reported and there either is not the capacity to deal with them or proceedings are started but end up in a shocking circular process.

[Tessa Munt]

It strikes me that one practical thing we can do, which I have done myself, is to refer to the RSPCA those in the area who run stables, particularly for livery purposes, and who have gaps because of the expense of raising horses. Where people have taken their animals back into their own home paddocks, or whatever, and there are spaces, the best thing we can do is to ensure the RSPCA and its various centres are aware of where there are spaces at livery. It is often cheaper to keep a horse at livery than to do anything else. We should encourage people to identify the spaces in livery to ensure that they are used by the RSPCA, as is done very well in my area.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am sure the Minister will have heard that point.

To conclude, I know that the Minister is seized of the importance of the issue and its urgency. Given the growth in incidents and the imminence of the Welsh legislation, I hope that he will be able to give us some indication today of what can be done to assist hard-working charities, the police and local authorities to ease the burden on farmers and alleviate the suffering and cruelty inflicted on the poor animals.

Water Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I apologise for not being present for the opening of the debate; this was because I was attending a Committee elsewhere in the House.

I want to address three areas: fracking, flooding on farmland and flood insurance. I shall start with flood insurance. Much of the patch that I represent is at or below sea level, and it is prone to flooding. Many planning permissions on land in areas that have already flooded are in existence now, but I want to concentrate on future developments. In large parts of my constituency, it would be hard to build any sort of home or business without it being on the flood plain. Would the Minister consider encouraging local authorities to look at the townhouse model? Homes should be built on stilts in flood areas, or at least with garages at ground floor level so that people are not put at risk through flooding and so that goods and property can be moved to upper floors more easily to avoid damage.

I have a minor suggestion for the Minister. It was suggested earlier that the water companies should be a statutory consultee, but would it also be possible for representatives of the Association of British Insurers to clarify the insurance situation on new property proposals being put before development committees, when they involve developments in areas of flood risk? In that way, developers would be forced to use design to mitigate the risk, and purchasers would understand the risks and insurance costs involved, as well as knowing that they would be able to get insurance for their home or business.

Turning to flooding on farmland, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who took the trouble to visit my constituency when he was the Minister with responsibility for this issue. He visited the Axe and Brue valleys in April this year and met more than 100 farmers and smallholders whose homes, stock and businesses had been severely affected by months of flooding. The farmers made it clear that the rivers, rhynes and waterways had suffered over the past 13 to 15 years because they had not been cleared or maintained. They had been neglected in the areas served by the Axe and the Brue rivers. There were problems with silt, blockages and overgrowing. In Somerset, money usually goes to the areas surrounding the Tone and Parrett rivers, but it is important that all our waterways should be maintained and improved.

The Environment Agency’s six aims and objectives recognise wildlife, flora and fauna, but there is no recognition whatever of the value of productive land. There should be, particularly at a time when food production is so important and we desire to be self-sufficient, or at least self-supplying. That point was also highlighted regularly. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to ensure that the residents and businesspeople in my part of Somerset get the dredging that they need and the ongoing maintenance that they deserve from the Environment Agency. I also hope that the agency and the Government will recognise the value of productive land, and that there is a response to the need to protect agricultural interests as well.

[Ian Swales]

Does my hon. Friend agree that failure to dredge does not often result in a cost to those who should be dredging, and that it mainly results in a cost to the insurance industry? Does she think that something should be done about that?

[Tessa Munt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be so much better if we could get the dredging programme sorted out, because it would get rid of the need for massive insurance claims. In my area, if water can reach the pumps, it can be pumped away. Because of the lack of dredging, however, it cannot reach the pumps. It is possible to see the pumps from the flooded areas, but the water cannot reach them and therefore cannot be taken away. Dredging would cure that problem.

My final area of concern is the risk that fracking for shale gas poses to our rivers and groundwater in terms of pollution and water stress. The Bill already amends the 2010 environmental permitting regulations that cover fracking activities, making it an excellent opportunity to address these concerns and strengthen the existing regulatory framework. The House has heard repeatedly that our regulatory regime for fracking is the most stringent in the world, and it is true that, if properly implemented and enforced, the existing regulations could mitigate many of the risks posed by fracking. However, although fracking has been taking place for years, this particular new technology that is planned for the UK brings more serious risks that we cannot properly assess at this early stage. Even the best regulatory regime can only mitigate risk; it cannot eliminate it. That means that a water pollution incident cannot be ruled out. It is therefore of considerable concern that it is not clear who would be liable if something does go wrong. One of the main risks from fracking is pollution of groundwater, which can occur because of faults in production wells. Groundwater clean-up is very costly and can take decades. For example, the contamination of a chalk aquifer near St Albans in Hertfordshire in 2000 led to an extensive contamination of the public drinking water supply, and the cost of the clean-up, which took a decade, was about £16 million.

Even if liability for pollution can be proven, there remains a risk that fracking companies could go bankrupt, leaving taxpayers or water companies with the costs. That has been a major issue in the case of Scottish Coal, whose liquidators have been given permission to abandon coal mines and polluted land without carrying out restoration or in any way controlling pollution from the sites. Instead of identifying and addressing these risks, it appears that the opposite direction of travel is being taken. Not only is there pressure to simplify and streamline regulation, with the Environment Agency committing to, for example, a dramatic reduction in the time it takes to issue permits to fracking operators, but there is evidence to suggest that existing regulations are not being adequately enforced. For example, at Preese Hall, the Environment Agency did not issue environmental permits for the disposal and management of flow-back waste water; it only discovered after the site had been hydraulically fractured that the flow-back fluid should be classified as radioactive waste.

If experiences in the United States have taught us anything, it would be that we need a strict regulatory regime. We cannot rely on putting our faith in the industry behaving well on a voluntary basis. In a groundbreaking peer-reviewed study of aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales in Pennsylvania and New York, Osborn et al, 2011, uncovered systematic evidence of methane contamination of drinking water linked to shale gas extraction.

In England, a third of all our domestic water supply comes from groundwater reserves, which are also essential for industry and farming. It is vital that we go as far as possible to mitigate risks in advance and ensure that we make provision to cover the full costs of clean-ups. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to ensure the Bill addresses these issues by implementing a liability guarantee. Such a guarantee would ensure the public purse and the taxpayer are not hit when anything goes wrong.

My next big concern is the amount of water that is required for the production of shale gas. Shale gas exploration and production is a highly water-intensive industry, and the process of fracking requires enormous volumes of water. At Preese Hall up to 8,400 cubic metres—about the equivalent of three and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools—is required per well. The fracking process may have to be repeated several times over the life of the well to keep the gas flowing. With proposals for thousands of sites, each with multiple wells, the potential drain on our already stressed rivers and groundwater could be huge.

I ask the Minister and his Department to consider the Bill as an opportunity to address these concerns by reforming the abstraction regime for taking water from the environment. That should go a long way to ensuring that additional pressure on water resources from fracking does not result in the over-abstraction of water from areas already under water stress. If the Government choose to exploit this new resource, we can make sure that we do so in a way that does not place unacceptable risks on the environment or on the public purse. Such an approach will also guard against unnecessary resource risks to our communities, our countryside and our businesses.

Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I am concerned that this debate may herald the end of the British breakfast as we know it. Following a consultation, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has ordered a reduction in the permitted sugar level for jams, jellies and marmalades from 60% to 50%, and the removal of the UK national limit for reduced-sugar jam and of the national provisions for curds and mincemeat. The focus of my opposition is the reduction of the permitted sugar levels for jams, jellies and marmalades, and the removal of the national provisions for curds and mincemeat, which sounds their death knell.

Reducing permitted sugar levels from 60% to 50% would in time destroy the characteristic quality of British jams, jellies and marmalades, and could mislead consumers. We all know what we expect when we go to the supermarket: something of beautiful quality with beautiful colour, with a shelf life of about a year. Traditional jams use cooked fruit, without additives—that is important: the quality of those preserves is determined by the proportions of sugar, fruit, pectin and acid. If the total sugar percentage is reduced, the characteristic gel in the consistency of jams, jellies and marmalades will be lost, and the result will be a homogenised, spreadable sludge, bearing no resemblance to the product we know and enjoy in England as British jam.

Scientists who worked at Long Ashton agricultural research station at the university of Bristol in the 1920s examined the shelf life of jam and other, similar products. The recommendation that they made was for a minimum sugar content of 60%, regardless of the type of fruit used in the recipe. That ensured a good shelf life of at least a year. The 60% level has its origin not in Brussels, as many people think, but in Bristol.

Of course, many people are slightly squeamish about the sort of thing that my grandmother would do—opening jam that had not been used for a couple of months and scooping the top off, where it had fermented slightly. Many people fear greatly, for food safety reasons, that they should not eat jam when there is a bit of fluff on the top, but it is important to understand that jam has a shelf life of a year.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this important and interesting subject to the House. Can she put the recommendation into context? Many recommendations, good and bad, make their way into the annals of Brussels. Not all of them come out of the sausage machine as legislation. What stage has the idea reached, and does the hon. Lady’s presence here today, outlining its daftness, mean that there is scope to stop it in its tracks?

[Tessa Munt]

I rather hope so. That is a question that the Minister will be able to answer. I understand that he signed the order last week, but that the statutory instrument has not been put before Parliament. I hope we can stop it dead in its tracks.

As well as today’s debate, there has been an amazing amount of publicity, including my debates with the Minister this morning on Radio Somerset and Radio Devon—and I have a little list of people who want to talk to me about jam later today. I suspect that all that shows that the public are greatly interested. Sometimes, Departments want to slide regulations through, and those things do not always hit the public. We do not all read the Parliament website and DEFRA press releases. I forgive the Minister that, but it is good that we are having the debate.

The new regulations are part of the Government’s red tape challenge to reduce the regulatory burden on industry—particularly on small and medium-sized businesses. They revise the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003, which I regard as completely adequate. Those regulations state that the percentage of soluble solids content for jams, jellies and marmalades must be 60% unless the product is one with reduced sugar, when it has a permitted percentage of between 25% and 50%.

There will be encouragement to make more reduced sugar products, as they might be perceived as more healthy. Some jam manufacturers have urged caution with the percentage. The Department’s impact assessment document for the new regulations cited a potential for increasing the risk of spoilage. Currently, reduced-sugar products, with a percentage of 25% to 50%, may contain chemical additives to ensure that they have a good shelf life, which sugar will give naturally. Potassium sorbate or E202 will be added if we reduce the level of sugar in jam.

At a time when public attention is being directed to the content of food, it seems inadvisable to encourage the unnecessary production of food items with additives and artificial flavours. With a 60% sugar content, the colours of sweet preserves are bright and the fruit is fantastic. A lower percentage produces products with a darker, muddier colour, which may affect consumer confidence in a well known British product. In addition, if the consistency lacks the characteristic gel, and is more like that of a fruit spread or fruit butter, consumer confidence in the properties of jam and other products may be lost. I urge the Minister to consider calling things fruit spread or fruit butter, as happens on the continent.

The 50% permitted sugar level will be lower than the 55% minimum adopted by France and Germany; something similar is done in America as well. The jams produced by those countries have always been different from ours. I spent some of my summer in France, and what they call jam is completely different from what we expect to pluck from the shelves in shops, farm stores and supermarkets.

Historically, continental jams and similar products have been made using completely different methods. The countries I mentioned do not make products whose consistency has the characteristic British gel; to make their jams, fruit and sugar are cooked together or soaked and then cooked together. They are referred to as soft set products, and have a loose, almost pouring consistency.

British jams are traditionally made in two stages. The fruit is cooked, either with or without water, to extract any acid and pectin. Sugar is added to the cooked mixture, dissolved and then boiled to a setting point. Marmalades are made by first cooking the citrus fruit in water and then dissolving sugar into the cooked mixture and boiling it to a set. Jellies are made by cooking fruit in water and straining the cooked mixture through a jelly bag. The residual juice is boiled with sugar to a setting point. We in Britain love our jams, jellies and marmalades to be traditionally made, to produce a natural set.

The consumer was clearly protected by the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003. A product labelled as jam had 60% sugar and consequently had the traditional characteristics I have described. Reduced-sugar jams had to be labelled as such, which alerted the consumer to the fact that they were a different product.

There is no appetite for a reduction among some of the high quality manufacturers in England, Scotland and Wales—notably Wilkin and Sons of Tiptree, Mackays, and Wendy Brandon Handmade Preserves; I note that the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who has Tiptree in her constituency, is present for the debate. The regulations have been driven by a small number of small producers to increase their sales of apple-based spreads, which they want to label as jam. They are nothing like traditional British jam—I have tasted them. Given the high acid and pectin properties in cooking apples, it is possible to set the product with less sugar, but that does not apply to all fruits, as the pectin and acid content varies between them.

As a member of the women’s institute of Mark in Somerset, I am curious to know how the National Federation of Women’s Institutes responded to the regulations. Historically, the WI is the best known organisation to give instruction—to its members and the wider public—on the characteristics of sweet preserves. Its publication “On With The Show” lists the criteria for judging those preserves.

I understand that out of the 132 organisations consulted by DEFRA, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes was one of a handful claiming to have received a consultation letter. Sadly, I understand that it declined to respond, but the WI will be left with its rules to consider. How will the new products be judged in competitions and how will preservation judges’ training courses be affected? I can only assume that the WI will leave its rules unchanged, as preserves with the traditional characteristics are the only naturally produced ones with a long shelf life.

Deregulation of the provisions for curds and mincemeat, as listed in the 2003 regulations, would stimulate the creation of other products labelled as curds and mincemeat. In 2003, DEFRA asked the industry whether it wished to retain the national rules for curds and mincemeat, and the overwhelming response was yes. At the time, the industry felt that there was a need to set minimum rules to ensure the quality of the products and to prevent poor quality or inferior substitutes. The 2003 regulations included a minimum sugar content of 65% for curds and mincemeat. Those rules were notified to the European Commission, as required, and there were no objections to the UK’s setting rules in that area. Curds and mincemeat have continued to be UK-specific products.

In spite of that, DEFRA’s impact assessment for the new regulations suggested that the deregulation of curds and mincemeat would cut red tape and free the industry to innovate and/or reformulate, provided that the customer was not being misled. Curds and mincemeat are uniquely British, with their origins firmly established for centuries; they are not part of the culinary culture of other European Union member states.

Curds and mincemeat are made using a small list of specific ingredients. Mincemeat has a history traceable back to the late 17th century, in the period following Cromwell’s two-year ban on Christmas festivities. After his death, and once Christmas had been reinstated as a festival, the mincemeat that we know today was introduced—a product with a quantity of vine fruits, sugar, citrus peel, suet or equivalent fat, and optional alcohol.

Fruit curds, lemon curd in particular, became well known in England in the late 1800s. Recipes with eggs, butter, sugar and fruit were called transparent puddings; the method of storing them in jars became popular in the 19th century. Fruit curds are an emulsion of edible fat, sugar, whole egg or egg yolks—or both—and fruit. The 2003 regulations specify percentages of ingredients for the quantity of fat and eggs for every 1,000 grams of the finished product. The quantity of fruit is sufficient to characterise the finished product.

For mincemeat, the 2003 regulations specify the quantity of vine fruit, suet and citrus peel used for every 1,000 grams. Curds and mincemeat have a soluble dry matter of 65%, unless they are reduced-sugar products. Any product with less than 65% is labelled as a “low sugar substitute”. Deregulation would stimulate the introduction of products materially different from the existing definitions of curds and mincemeat. There is no case for deregulating curds and mincemeat.

I have some particular questions for the Minister. The 2003 regulations were based on scientific research. Is the Minister aware of any published research that supports the new regulations? For producers, there is an attraction in using the words “jam”, “marmalade”, “jelly”, “mincemeat” and “curd”—how can DEFRA be confident that consumers will not be misled when lower-sugar fruit spreads are labelled as jam, despite being very different from traditional jams?

I understand that the Minister has signed the proposals, but the statutory instrument has yet to be laid before Parliament. How can we keep the jam regulations unchanged? Now that the matter has received additional public interest and scrutiny, what should members of the public do to change the Department’s mind? What criteria will the Secretary of State or the Minister be using to review the regulations?

If we really want to have continental jam, we can go to the continent, or we can buy it. So far, I have resisted the temptation to use all the amazing jokes that have come out—

[Mr Ellwood]

Go on!

[Tessa Munt]

Perhaps I shall.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has already highlighted the fact that the world’s greatest jams and marmalades are made in my constituency, in Tiptree. There is no doubt that we have the best jams in the world, and we export a lot of them. Does she not agree that the Government should be working with producers with a great international reputation for exporting their jams throughout the world, so that we can increase our profile and market share internationally and outcompete Europe?

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree more. I do not agree with the idea that the new proposals will encourage exports; we will end up exporting, and importing, more gloop, as opposed to having something that we all know well—British jam, jelly, marmalade, curds and mincemeat are completely classic British products. If we want to export them, we need to help people to do so, but we need to keep the quality and the standard of what we see on the British breakfast table.

As I was about to say, the Minister seems to have found himself in a sticky situation, or in a bit of a jam. Jam today, please, but I would like to see jam tomorrow as well.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to entertain us by spreading the DEFRA word.

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

Thank you, Mr Owen. I also thank the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) for securing the debate, which has indeed gathered a bit of interest. The hon. Lady and I had a dry run of this discussion in the media this morning. I can understand her concerns about some elements of the proposed changes, but I feel that there is a degree of role reversal—as a Conservative who is sceptical about having the EU telling us what to do, I am all up for loosening regulations and letting markets decide, so to hear a Lib Dem taking such a strident position on the issue was surprising.

I come from a family involved in fruit farming. The jam industry is itself important, but having it as an outlet, a market, for the fruit industry is also important. One of the things that I learned, to my cost, while trying to grow strawberries is that a lot of things can go wrong in the fruit industry, whether bad weather, bruising of fruit or pallets of fruit tipping over, so having the jam industry market for some of the damaged fruit is very important. I ought to let the House know that my family’s business, Trevaskis Farm, makes jam for sale in small quantities through the farm shop. I have a little knowledge of the area through that.

To provide the context, the proposed changes to the regulations are part of DEFRA’s contribution to the Government’s red tape challenge initiative. The regulations were one of a number that were identified under the food and hospitality theme that could benefit from improvement and where potential savings could be delivered to businesses. The jam regulations were identified as an area in which we could consider changes that might provide businesses with greater flexibility and less restrictive rules.

One impetus behind the change was a request by some in the industry for the UK to consider taking up an optional derogation in the EU jam directive that permits—but, crucially, does not require—a sugar level lower than 60% to be set, which is something that a number of other member states have already done. The derogation allows member states to set a lower minimum sugar level for jam and similar products.

Organisations such as the Food Processors Association, an organisation that incorporates the United Kingdom Sweet Spreads Association and represents many in the jam industry, were keen for the Government to amend the regulations to ensure that the UK was on a more level footing with other major EU jam manufacturing countries, such as France and Germany.

[Tessa Munt]

The clue is in the title, the Sweet Spreads Association, and that is not jam. The Minister should come cooking with me—I do not know what else I can do, but suggest a master class in jam cookery in DEFRA. Let us have a go. Frankly, if people want to call something a fruit or sweet spread, they may, but they should not be calling that stuff jam.

[George Eustice]

All right. Since that original request, which was for a minimum permitted sugar level of 55%, others have requested that we consider lowering the minimum permitted level even further, to 50%, which would remove the so-called no man’s land that currently exists between sweet spread products, which are supposed to be below 50%, and jam products, which are supposed to be 60% or above.

After considering all the responses, we decided to reduce the minimum permitted sugar level for jam from 60% to 50%, but to retain the national provisions for fruit curds and mincemeat—an issue that the hon. Lady raised later in her speech. That will all be subject to the necessary clearances. The reduction in the minimum permitted sugar level to 50%, however, delivers the greatest flexibility to the industry as a whole, in a way that will not be detrimental to those who are in compliance with the existing regulations and can continue to make their jam as they do now.

The hon. Lady has expressed concerns about the possible impact on British jam, but I believe in the market—the market will dictate what does and does not sell. I mentioned earlier that my own family’s farm business produces small quantities of jam for sale through the farm shop. I took the liberty of talking last night to my mother, who is in charge of making the jams. She said that there has been a trend among consumers over the past 10 to 15 years to seek out products with lower sugar levels. They want products with more fruit and less sugar. We should not resist that, if there is a market demand for such products. They do not have to be the gunge or dreadful products that the hon. Lady mentioned —I assure her that the products sold in our farm shop are very good.

[Tessa Munt]

I have been contacted by diabetics and others who require products with a reduced sugar level and that is fine, but they are always accurately labelled on supermarket shelves and in farm shops as reduced-sugar jam. People know what they are buying. But if everything with a minimum sugar level of 50% and above can be called jam, there will be utter confusion about what is really jam and what is a fruit spread or whatever.

[George Eustice]

I understand that. The sugar content of a fruit spread is supposed to be below 50%, so we are removing that no man’s land between 50% and 60% and allowing products with a sugar content of below 60% but above 50% to be labelled as jam.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the 60:40 sugar-to-fruit ratio was recommended following research at the Long Ashton research station in Bristol in the 1920s. That was a long time ago and since then there have been technical advances and recipe experimentation. In the last few years, our market has included fruit spreads and jam with a sugar level of less than 60% with no increased spoilage reported. The reduction of the minimum requirement to 50% removes the current gap for products that fall into the 50% to 59% category. The flexibility delivered by the change will help to ensure that British jam manufacturers remain competitive because they will have the option to market their jam products with a higher fruit content on a level playing field with other member states.

It is worth reiterating that we are talking about a minimum permitted sugar level. That does not mean that existing manufacturers must work to the new minimum.

[George Eustice]

That is the case because these are minimum not maximum requirements. If there were a maximum requirement requiring all jams to have 50% sugar we would be having a totally different discussion. We are discussing minimum requirements and giving the industry flexibility. Those who want to develop products with a lower sugar level that they can market in Europe will be able to do so, and traditional jam manufacturers who want to retain a 60% level, are resistant to any change and do not accept that there have been changes in techniques or recipes may continue as at present and market their products as traditional jam with a premium in the market.

[Tessa Munt]

If the minimum level is set at 50%, all the organisations that are making jam with less than 60% sugar will be entitled under the regulations to call their products “jam”, not “reduced-sugar jam” or whatever else they are attempting to make. We need that clarity for the British public’s attachment to jam and what it means. I have bought stuff from supermarket shelves that is like mud—it has lost its colour, it is not the right texture and it is a completely different product. All those products will be entitled to be called jam.

[George Eustice]

I do not think it is in any company’s interest to market products that, to use my hon. Friend’s words, taste like mud. We must let the market decide. Makers of brands who passionately believe that a quality product must have 60% sugar will carry on with that. Nothing in the change will affect that. If my hon. Friend is right and brands with a lower sugar content will have an inferior product and if customers conclude that, as she suggested, they taste like mud, they will not buy it again. The market for that product will be small. In a free market economy, we should have a light-touch approach to regulation, and that has come out of the Government’s red-tape challenge. The market must decide. If my hon. Friend is right, the market for such products will be small.

Our changes will provide jam businesses with increased flexibility. We are keen to help small businesses that are trying to break into the market, and some exciting new products are coming on to the market based on the unique British Bramley apple. Jams made from it set more easily because of its high pectin content and do not need quite as much sugar. My hon. Friend said that the market for such products is small, but an internet search showed quite a number of products using Bramley apples as part of a mixed jam, such as Bramley and blackcurrant and Bramley and blackberry. There are exciting prospects for them, and there is nothing more British than the Bramley apply. We are almost unique in Europe in having specialist culinary apples rather than just generic apples. This is a good potential market for our excellent Bramley apples.

The regulations will be improved in respect of reduced-sugar jams. Since 2006, when new regulations on nutrition and health claims were introduced, there has been an overlap with the 2003 regulations that specify that a reduced-sugar jam must have a sugar content of between 25% and 50%. In contrast, the nutrition and health claims rules require all products labelled “reduced sugar” to have at least a 30% energy reduction compared with a standard product. To sort out this discrepancy, we are doing away with the specific rules for reduced-sugar jams so that they will need to comply only with the same rules as all other foods. That will provide improved clarity for the industry and consumers, and respondents to our consultation agreed it would be much simpler to work with one set of rules in this area.

We consulted on the proposed changes earlier in 2013 and received some useful contributions. One option that provoked strong opinions was in response to whether the UK’s national provisions for fruit curds and mincemeat—the sort in mince pies—were still useful or whether they could be removed. I can reassure my hon. Friend, who highlighted many concerns, that although she may not agree with our proposals to reduce the minimum sugar content of jam, we have acted on the evidence put to the Department and we will not change the regulations on fruit curds or mincemeat.

The main justifications cited were that curd and mincemeat standards help to maintain the production of these uniquely British products whose origins are firmly established and go back centuries. They are not part of other member states’ culinary culture and UK producers manufacture them to traditional recipes. The current rules reflect those practices.

The standards provide an important yardstick and their removal could result in a reduction in quality and could stimulate the introduction of products that are materially different from our current traditional curds and mincemeat products. So, as a direct result of the cogent arguments put forward in the consultation process, including a response from my hon. Friend’s constituent, Mrs Lloyd, we will retain unchanged the national provisions for fruit curds and mincemeat. That decision is positive and demonstrates the benefit of consultation to help to ensure that the final policy decision is fit for purpose.

Horsemeat

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Phenylbutazone, known as bute, can be bought off the internet in tablet form, in injectable form, and as an apple and citrus-flavoured powder. Most horse owners believe that it is the only effective anti-inflammatory drug in controlling joint pain. It is so easy for owners to get hold of it that I wonder what the Minister might have in the way of proposals to ensure that there is some integrity to the system. Does he agree that testing is the only way of identifying the use of this drug?

[Mr Heath]

I do not want to move away from the position that it is crucial to understand: it is the responsibility of those who are selling products and those who are processing products to obey the law, which is very clear that a horse that has had phenylbutazone administered to it should not be entering the food chain. We have a regulatory issue as to whether the horse passport system across Europe is sufficient to meet that task, and that is what we are addressing. It would not be helpful to people who own horses across Europe to say that they cannot use a very useful anti-inflammatory drug; rather, we need to say, “If you do that, don’t put it on people’s plates.”

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is too late. If she had risen earlier, she would have got in. We were drawing matters to a close. I thank the Minister and other colleagues for their co-operation.