Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

1. What steps the Church Commissioners plan to take in response to the House of Bishops’ pastoral letter on the 2015 general election.

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

A copy of the House of Bishops’ pastoral letter has been sent to every Member of Parliament. The letter makes it clear that it is not a shopping list of policies that the bishops would like to see, and that if anyone claims that the pastoral letter is saying, “Vote for this party or that party”, they have misunderstood it, but that there is a need to focus on the common good and the participation of more people in developing a political vision.

[Mr Nuttall]

As this is the last Church Commissioners questions before Dissolution when my right hon. Friend leaves this House, may I place on record my thanks for all his work as the Second Church Estates Commissioner?

Is my right hon. Friend concerned that this letter, which is actually a 52-page booklet, may have been misrepresented in some quarters by some commentators, who have cherry-picked certain phrases and passages rather than looking at the document as a whole?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope every parliamentary colleague will read the bishops’ pastoral letter. I do not expect everyone to agree with everything in it, but it is a thoughtful and thought-provoking document which makes it clear that the bishops believe that

“the great majority of politicians and candidates enter politics with a passion to improve the lives of their fellow men and women.”

Only yesterday the Archbishop of Canterbury made this observation:

“It’s just the reality; decisions have to be made and it is often unbelievably difficult. Politicians know that quite often they are doing the best they can and the more I see of them the more I reckon that it’s very rare to find one who isn’t doing the best they can but often in incredibly difficult situations.”

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

New clauses 1 and 2 stand in my name, and new clause 3 and amendment 18 are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

This important Bill enables a lacuna to be filled in the procedures of the House of Lords, and to enable the House of Lords—where appropriate—to suspend or expel Members. The House of Lords currently has powers to suspend Members, but rather curiously it can do so only for the remainder of a Parliament. Therefore, if a Member of the House of Lords were to be suspended today, they could effectively be suspended only until 30 March, or whenever this Parliament is dissolved. If, on the other hand, the House of Lords decided to suspend a Member early in the next Parliament, they would be suspended for the duration of that Parliament. That is curious and it is difficult to justify why the length of suspension should vary. The House of Lords wanted to clarify that position as well as the position on expulsions. The measure had wide support in the other place, and I am sure it will win support throughout this House.

This is a somewhat thin House today. I speak not personally about my bodily weight—although, as my wife points out to me, I have a body image problem because I do not see my body as everybody else sees it—but it is a thin House because there are very few of us here. That, I think, is a consequence of five-year fixed-term Parliaments, because for the last few months, although the House has been sitting, large numbers of colleagues understandably want to be in their constituencies or elsewhere campaigning.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that in the last Session the House of Lords Reform Bill passed through this House and the other place, does my right hon. Friend know why, if these matters are now considered so important, their lordships did not see fit to amend that Bill last year to include these proposals?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I cannot speak for what happened in the House of Lords—clearly these measures were not included in that Bill or we would not be debating them today, and I will come on to that point.

As I was saying, we may be a rather thin House, but we are also an experienced House, and looking at the right hon. and hon. Members present, I think we have well over a century of service between us. I feel a bit like one of those black and white western films, where one is at Fort Laramie and most of the people have been sent out in the middle of night to get to safety, but a few old soldiers are left manning the battlements of the business. I feel a little as though we are in that position today. My right hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), myself and others, are the old soldiers who have been left behind while others are out campaigning, because we are considered to be totally expendable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

4. What discussions the Commissioners have had with the Archbishop of Canterbury on lessons learnt for the Church from his year-long tour of the Anglican Communion.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Archbishop of Canterbury visited 36 of his fellow archbishops during his pilgrimage around the Anglican Communion. In his presidential address to the General Synod in November, he reported that it was a

“flourishing…but also a divided Communion.”

[Mr Nuttall]

The Archbishop of Canterbury will have encountered widespread concern in the Church of England about the difficulties faced by Christians in other parts of the world. What is the Church doing to help those in other countries, particularly in the middle east, who are persecuted because of their religious beliefs?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue which I am sure the House will treat seriously. The Archbishop of Canterbury has observed:

“Not a day goes by without something which should break one’s heart at the courage and the difficulties involved”

for such people. I think the fact is that the hostility Christians are facing is now on a far more serious level and we are reaching the point where the word “persecution” no longer adequately describes the treatment of Christians in many parts of the world. Religious cleansing and a type of cultural genocide—which is a crime against humanity—is a more accurate description, and we are now seeing that in Iraq, Syria, parts of Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan. The goal of Islamic extremists such as ISIS is total Islamicisation, and this has nearly been achieved in Iraq, for example, which a decade ago was home to one of the four most robust Christian communities in the Arab world. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that all guidance produced for parishes for hustings meetings at the general election will comply with both the Charity Commission regulations regarding political activity and those of the Electoral Commission. As some of us know from previous general elections, Churches Together is experienced in organising hustings meetings in constituencies across the country. Those have been widely welcomed because they enable questions to be put on issues that might not otherwise be raised during a general election campaign, and I very much hope that will happen as much as possible at the general election next year.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

9. What support is available for churches in need of repairs.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

In the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly extended the listed places of worship grant scheme, for which I am extremely grateful. This will be a one-off grant of £15 million to enable listed church buildings of any denomination to apply for assistance with repairs to roofs and rainwater guttering.

[Mr Nuttall]

Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further details about the criteria for applying for a grant and what the deadline is? I understand that there is a fairly tight time scale in which churches must apply if they want to make use of the scheme.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right. The time scale is quite tight. Any church that has problems with its roof or its guttering should apply for funding. There is a website, www.lpowroof.org.uk, which shows all the details. Grants are available from £10,000 to £100,000. Repairing roofs is often unglamorous but very necessary work and there are a number of churches that require repairs to their roof.

As this is the last Church Commissioners questions before Christmas and the last question before Christmas, may I share with the House an observation? I saw yesterday in St Ethelburga’s church in the City, an old Saxon church that was bombed by the IRA and rebuilt, on the eastern window the prayer, “O pray for the peace of Jerusalem”.

Affordable Homes Bill

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is missing the point I seek to make, which is that the Labour Government, whom she supported, introduced almost identical provisions for tenants in the private rented sector, and there seems to be no reason why tenants in the private rented sector should be treated differently from social housing tenants.

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend makes a compelling case. Does he agree that the measures the Government are taking to stimulate housing supply, and the increase in the housing supply, will help to keep private rented sector rents in check, notwithstanding the fact that more people might seek smaller accommodation within the private rented sector?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England wholeheartedly supported the call from the Christian Muslim Forum for the death sentence against Meriam Ibrahim to be dropped. The Church of England will continue to support the Archbishop of Sudan on this issue.

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The plight of Meriam Ibrahim is of great concern to churches throughout the country. St Anne’s parish church, Tottington, in the diocese of Manchester, where I serve as church warden, wrote to the Sudanese embassy two weeks ago setting out our concerns. Will my right hon. Friend urge the leaders of the Church of England to do all they can to keep up the pressure to secure the freedom of this lady?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right, and his constituents demonstrate that this concern is shared throughout the country. I hope that other communities and individuals who feel similarly will also write to the Sudanese embassy and that parliamentary colleagues will support early-day motion 71, tabled in my name, which has support from Members in all parts of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The situation is clear. The Church of England’s understanding of marriage remains unchanged: marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, and under the canons of the Church of England marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. The canons of the Church of England retain their legal status as part of the law of England and I would hope that no priest who has taken an oath of canonical obedience would wish to challenge canon law and the law of England.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

4. What the anticipated return is on the Church Commissioners’ investments for the current financial year.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Church Commissioners are finalising their asset valuations and anticipate the total return for 2013 to be about 15% to 16%. The continued steady return will enable the Church Commissioners to continue the level of support that they give the ministry of the Church of England.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of it, can he say what support the Church Commissioners might be able to make available to fund local community projects to encourage growth in the Church at parish level?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I hope that during the course of this coming year the Church Commissioners will be able to make about £90 million available to support local community projects—projects in the diocese of Manchester and throughout the country—and to help serve the whole community of the country, making it clear that the Church of England is a national Church.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

1. What lessons the Church of England has learned from the increasing size of congregations attending services at cathedrals.

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

I am glad to report that over the past 10 years there has been a 35% increase in average weekly attendance in cathedral services. A team from Cranmer Hall at St John’s college, Durham is conducting a detailed survey of the trends in increased cathedral attendance.

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is indeed good news that there has been such a significant increase in the number of people worshipping in cathedrals over the past 10 years. Will the research seek to discover why attendance at services held in cathedrals has been going up at a time when attendance at many parish churches has been declining?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Absolutely; the research will seek to understand the detail of attendance trends at cathedrals and I hope that the results of the study will be published early next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effects of bats in churches; and if he will make a statement.

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

A small number of bats living in a church can be manageable, but parish churches are finding an increasing number of bats taking up residence in large roosts. There are significant costs in financial and human terms to those who worship in these churches, and to the wider community. The present situation is simply unsustainable.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. As a church warden, I know that many members of parochial church councils live in fear of bats taking up residence in their church buildings, because of the damage bats cause and the difficulty they have in removing them because of EU rules. Will my hon. Friend give the House some idea of what costs can be incurred by churches that have to remove a colony of bats?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Parish churches have to raise the money for bat litigation at considerable cost to their community, and that can prevent their own mission and ministry. The sums of money can be large. For example, the church of St Hilda’s in Ellerburn in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) has spent a total of £29,000 so far, which is a significant sum for a small congregation to finance. As yet, there is no resolution in sight, but I was grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for indicating in a recent debate in Westminster Hall that there might be a prospect of St Hilda’s, Ellerburn at last receiving a licence from Natural England to resolve this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

9. What reports the Church Commissioners have received of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plan for a pilgrimage of prayer around the province of Canterbury.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Prior to the formal commencement of his public ministry and enthronement in Canterbury cathedral on 21 March, Archbishop Justin intends to tour parts of the province of Canterbury to meet its people and visit its diverse communities. From 14 March to 19 March, he will visit five cities and six cathedrals. Everyone is welcome to join in the journey of prayer at any point during the pilgrimage.

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I urge him to encourage the new Archbishop to include the deanery of Bury in his pilgrimage and, in particular, St Anne’s parish church, where I have the honour of serving as church warden?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is visiting cities in the province of Canterbury and my hon. Friend’s constituency is of course in the province of York. I have no doubt that in due course the Archbishop of Canterbury will visit the province of York and I will draw to his attention my hon. Friend’s request.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I hope the hon. Lady will be able to be present next Thursday for the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate. He, I am sure, will explain to her that the Church of England will expedite the issue as speedily as possible. At the start of his ministry I think that he will be very conscious that it will not be possible for the Church of England to get on to other matters such as growth and mission until we have resolved the issue of consecrating women to the episcopate.

[Mr Nuttall]

In the more than 40 years since the General Synod became the governing body of the Church of England, whether one looks at the number of churches, the number of clergy or the number in the congregation, by any measure it has presided over a period of decline. Does my hon. Friend agree that however difficult the process might be, there is now a very urgent need for reform?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that Justin Welby, as the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, will make it clear that he sees it as his ministry as Archbishop of Canterbury to rebuild the Church. We have a once in a generation opportunity to start to grow the Church again. One in three parishes is growing. We need to work out how they are growing, and try to ensure that other parishes can grow similarly, if we are to have a Church of England which is truly a national Church speaking for the whole nation.

Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am clearly being uncharacteristically incapable of communicating what I am seeking to achieve. I do not in any way resile from the provisions in the Bill. The provisions that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South has put forward are necessary and valuable. I am simply trying to find a constructive way to ensure that as many of those provisions as possible eventually arrive on the statute book.

The hon. Member for Aberavon has to recognise that the Government have a strategy for carers, which is set out very clearly on pages 34 and 35 of the White Paper on reforming care and support. It states:

“From April 2013 the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for working with local partners to ensure that carers are identified and supported.”

That existing strategy has a number of parts that we would all want to discuss with the Ministers and officials who have responsibility for this policy. For example, much of the hon. Lady’s Bill is rightly about how we help and support carers in the world of work. The White Paper states,

“we will produce and publish a road map setting out action to support carers to remain in the workforce.”

I am always a bit suspicious of phrases such as “road map”, because I am never sure what legislative force a road map has. We will want to discuss with Ministers, in fairly robust terms, how we can ensure that the Bill that the Government bring forward in due course meets the aspirations and needs of the millions of carers in this country, for whom all of us present in the Chamber are concerned.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who is one of the pallbearers.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope to be helpful to him. Does he agree that rolling up the thrust of the private Member’s Bill into the Government Bill, which I think is the line that he is going down, would be entirely in line with the first recommendation of the Law Commission’s “Adult Social Care” report, which states that there should be a single statute in this area?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Absolutely; having a robust single statute is in everybody’s interest. We need to understand that we are not abandoning, resiling from or giving up any of the provisions in the Bill, but saying, to use a rather boring lawyers’ term, that they are adjourned generally with liberty to restore. In other words, we want to make quite sure that we have the opportunity to have a series of meetings with the Minister and his officials, so that we can go through the details of what is proposed for the Government’s Bill and how many of the private Member’s Bill’s provisions we can incorporate in it. The Minister has given his undertaking that we will have those meetings, and I know it was given in good faith.

It is the Government’s clear intention and policy to support as many people as possible to be in work, and one challenge for carers is the difficulty of retaining employment. The Government, hon. Members and everyone else have common cause on that, so it is just a question of how to make effective policy.

Likewise, it is clearly crucial that carers are identified, that they know themselves to be carers and that the supporting machinery identifies them as such. The provision of respite care has helped. In the past, I have asked GPs, “Why don’t you identify patients in your practice who have carers?” They have said, “Well look, Tony, there’s not really much point, because there’s not much that we can do to help them. We can identify them, but how much further does that get us?” At least now, with the NHS being able to provide respite care, there is a real purpose to GPs’ doing that. We need to ensure that the system sends the right signals and provides the right support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry]

I hope I have made it clear to the House that we share those concerns. That is why we are pushing for full exemption. The listed places of worship scheme is welcome, but it is very volatile and uncertain at the moment because people are never quite clear how much they will receive back under the scheme.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

6. Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefit to listed places of worship from the planned changes to gift aid next year will be more than outweighed by the proposal to charge them VAT on alterations? I do not know of any listed places of worship that are planning to install a swimming pool, but I know that many churches and cathedrals are planning to carry out alterations. Does he therefore agree that it would be best to leave things as they are and to allow the exemption to continue?

[Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but, in fairness, so does the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is why he made clear, at the meeting that the Bishop of London and I had with him on Monday, the Government’s commitment to ensuring that listed places of worship would not be adversely affected by the Budget proposal, and I am sure that he will do everything he can to deliver on that commitment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

4. What plans the Church Commissioners have to provide support for Christian communities in Nigeria.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

Lambeth palace is in regular contact with the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Following a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury has continued to be closely in touch with him about the ongoing situation in the region. The Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Justin Welby, is currently visiting Nigeria on behalf of the archbishop. The Church of England supports the work of the Anglican communion in working with the Church of Nigeria to end the murder and violence. It is putting its efforts into supporting movements for peace and reconciliation within the northern and central belt communities of Nigeria.

[Mr Nuttall]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, attacks on Christians in Nigeria have greatly increased in recent weeks, largely due, it seems, to the activities of the Boko Haram group. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning those attacks and urge the Church Commissioners, after considering the findings of the Lord Bishop of Durham, to take whatever action is necessary to bring such attacks to an end?

[Tony Baldry]

I think everyone in the House would agree that to murder people simply for their religion or simply because they are Christians is totally barbaric, taking us back through the centuries. I very much hope that the Government of Nigeria will do everything they can to prevent the continuing murder of Christians. It is particularly disturbing that the person accused of bombing St Theresa’s church just outside Abuja was found hiding in the home of a local state governor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry]

Absolutely, I would of course be very happy to do that. Ripon cathedral is the oldest English cathedral—its crypt dates back to 672—and for centuries it has been at the heart of Ripon. I hope that every possible local organisation will work with the dean and chapter to help enhance the vitality of Ripon. The Church Commissioners will certainly engage positively in whatever way we can to support that.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Home Office on reform of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 for the purposes of reducing the incidence of theft of metal from churches.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What resources the Church Commissioners plan to make available to churches that have been subject to theft or vandalism.

[Tony Baldry]

I shall place in the Library a copy of the Church Buildings Council’s report on metal theft, which concludes that the 1964 Act is no longer fit for purpose.

[Mr Nuttall]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the theft of metal from churches is costing them an estimated £1 million a month. Has he yet had any indication whether the recommendation made in the Church Buildings Council’s working party report of March this year—that cash payments by scrap yards for metals such as lead should be prohibited—will be accepted?

[Tony Baldry]

We are working very closely with Ministers to achieve that, and we have a meeting in the very near future with the noble Lord Henley to try to take it forward. I think that there is general agreement among everyone who has examined the matter that we need to take cash out of the transactions. It is too easy at present for people to strip churches of lead at night, go to a scrap yard the next day, get cash and walk away. The people who are suffering from that are in the most vulnerable communities in our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry]

That provision in the Budget was very welcome, as was the provision for the small donations gift aid scheme, because each year, in addition to using planned giving envelopes, people put into the collection plate some £58 million of loose change, and the scheme will be of considerable assistance in recovering tax on that money as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Church has to make the best possible use of funds that are given to it in meeting social need and ensuring that churches can be places of community resource. That also means their being places not just of worship but for the widest possible community use, whether it be for cafés, concerts, crèches or other uses for the community as a whole.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

7. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to reduce the level of lead theft from church buildings.

[Tony Baldry]

Last year, churches in Manchester had more lead theft than in any other area of the UK, with a significant number of insurance claims being made. Metal theft, particularly the theft of lead from church roofs, is the most serious problem facing the maintenance of the historic legacy of church buildings, with Wakefield cathedral being the most recent case. The Church recently sent a report to the Home Office in which it makes recommendations for the greater regulation of the scrap metal industry.

[Mr Nuttall]

What advice, if any, has the Church Buildings Council been able to give churches to advise them on how to help to deter thieves?

[Tony Baldry]

The Church is giving all possible advice to churches about effective deterrents, including what they should do regarding wireless roof alarms and other things. Frankly, though, it is a broader issue than that. The Church Buildings Council is of the view that the regulation of scrap yards is fundamental to reducing the level of metal theft. It is all too easy for roofs to be stripped of lead one night and the lead to be sold for cash the next day. We want cash transactions for lead to be made illegal, a requirement for scrap yards receiving lead or traders selling it to be licensed specially for that activity, a requirement to show documentary proof of identification when selling lead and to photograph each person when their identity is checked, and a requirement on scrap yards to report suspicious activity or persons to local police forces.

It is difficult to underestimate the damage that this is doing. The number of claims—

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Tony Baldry and David Nuttall

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

At the outset of his commendable comments, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made the very important point that food and farming are too little debated in this House. I hope that the Backbench Business Committee will help to ensure that at least one day a year is devoted to a debate on food and farming.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate for a number of reasons. I am the last surviving Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister in the House of Commons. In the general election immediately preceding the Great Reform Act, the Conservative candidate for Banbury had a four-word election address: “God speed the plough.” When I was first elected, Banbury had the largest cattle market in Europe. I am interested in this debate as a north Oxfordshire representative and former MAFF Minister, but I am also a former chair of the Select Committee on International Development and I was co-chair, with Lord Ewen Cameron, of the all-party group on agriculture and food for development.

How we ensure sustainable livestock is a complex issue, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on introducing the Bill, which is clearly of interest to a large number of our constituents. I am not sure that we can do the topic justice collectively in the comparatively short period that we have for today’s debate, or individually in the time that each of us realistically and reasonably has to speak.

I note that the Bill has the support of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, of which I am a member. When I completed 25 years service in this House, my local constituency association presented me with two Gloucester old spot sows—affectionately named Hazel and Harriet—and I think that a paragraph in the RBST’s summarises why a number of people involved in agriculture and farming believe that the Bill might be helpful:

“The Rare Breeds Survival Trust is supporting this Bill because it calls for a strategic approach to livestock farming. The Bill would ensure that policies aimed at reducing the global impact of livestock production will give farmers in the UK an opportunity to maximise the use of extensive grazing systems, including using traditional breeds which will not only reduce our reliance on imported soy, but also greatly reduce the carbon footprint of livestock production, deliver benefits for wild life in the UK and support upland farmers who are protecting upland habitats and landscapes.”

No hon. Members will have any quarrel with that aspiration, but the question is this: do we need more regulation and more legislation to achieve a strategic approach to livestock farming, or do we trust farmers to continue to seek to improve farming’s environmental impact?

I note that coincidental with the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China, we exported a large number of breeding sows to China—they were not Gloucester old spots, alas, but high-pedigree UK pigs. We should not forget during this debate that standards of animal husbandry in the UK are among the best in the world.

However, I should observe that I got the impression from some of the letters, e-mails and briefing papers that I received before the debate that the main motivation of some of the supporters of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill is that they are either inclined to be anti-farmer or opposed to livestock farming as a concept. That is a pity. Such an approach is short sighted, because farmers here and elsewhere in the world have an important role to play in ensuring that we have the food that we need and that it is produced in such a way that we can pass on this planet to succeeding generations at least in a condition in which we would ourselves have hoped to have inherited it.

In that respect, there is a very real difficulty with the Bill. I get the impression that some supporters of the Bill seem to think that its provisions will achieve objectives that are not entirely clear. In e-mails that I have received, it has been suggested that those objectives include a ban on large dairies, an enforced reduction in meat and dairy in people’s diets, and the setting up of trade barriers on imported animal feed. I assume that that follows from references in the Bill to the use of subsidies or grants to encourage or discourage the use of particular practices, methods, feeds and crops; the use of taxes or levies to encourage or discourage use of particular practices, methods, feeds and crops; and the use of public information campaigns to encourage or discourage particular consumer behaviour.

I get the clear impression that some people hope that the Bill will do things that it is not immediately clear will be achieved. However, the ambiguity of the provisions and the confusion of aspiration about what the Bill intends may well cause more confusion than constructive engagement.

We live in a world of rapidly growing population, and those people need to be fed. The population is also becoming increasingly urban. In a comparatively short time, more of the population of Africa will live in major cities than will live in the countryside. It is also important to recall that more than 200 million people in Africa—more than one in four of the continent’s population—suffer chronic hunger.

I am glad that the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the L’Aquila food security initiative, which was agreed at the G8 summit in 2009. The agreement aims to increase food production in developing countries, making food more affordable for the poorest and most vulnerable, create wealth and lift the poor out of poverty. Within the G20, the UK has committed to improving food security by making agricultural trade and markets function more effectively and reducing food price volatility, in order to protect those most vulnerable to food price increases, and I am glad to note that next year the UK Government will be publishing a major new foresight review of the future of farming and food, which will consider how the world can continue to feed itself sustainably and equitably over the next 40 years.

However, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development pertinently observed in a debate earlier this week on food security in Africa:

“Agriculture is a private sector activity”—

the point that the hon. Member for North Antrim made—

“whether it involves subsistence farmers, smallholders…or large-scale commercial farming. The bulk of the investment needed to ramp up productivity will come from the private sector: from farmers’ own pockets, from banks and micro-credit agencies and from local and national investors.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 62WH.]

We live in a world challenged by climate change—a world where ease and globalisation of transport means that it is possible to transmit human and infectious diseases globally within a very short time span. Climate change means that there is often increasing competition for resources. For example, to those of us who have witnessed at first-hand the tragedy of Darfur, it is clear that much of that tragedy happened as a consequence of the Sahara desert moving inexorably onwards from Chad into neighbouring Sudan, and resulting in a conflict for land between nomads who have traditionally driven their cattle across the country and farmers using land to grow crops.

I do not think there is any dispute that livestock production contributes to climate change by making greenhouse gases either directly, such as from enteric fermentation, or indirectly, from feed production activities or the consequences of deforestation that creates new pasture. However, I think we do need to put this in perspective. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has concluded that, taken together in a food chain approach, livestock contribute about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, that also means that the livestock sector has an enormous potential to contribute to climate change mitigation. That will clearly require research and development of new mitigating technology—technologies to mitigate greenhouse emissions and the improved ability to monitor, report and verify emissions from livestock production.

I think we need to reflect that livestock are very often key assets held by poor people, particularly in food-insecure systems. Livestock often fulfil a number of economic, social and risk management functions. Indeed, for many poor people the loss of their livestock assets means that they decline into chronic poverty, with long-term effects on their livelihoods. So while of course there is understandable concern about some livestock production becoming more intensified to exploit economies of scale along the supply chain and concern about livestock hotspots, such as Amazonian ranches, and a trend of deforestation to provide more land for cattle or land for soya to feed cattle, there are also trade-offs in the increased efficiency of production; but those trade-offs have to be set against the implications for natural resource use, and adding a small amount of animal-based foods to a predominantly plant-based diet can yield large improvements in maternal health and child development.

Livestock contribute 40% of the global value of agricultural output and support the livelihoods and food security of almost a billion people. Indeed, livestock provide food for at least 830 million food-insecure people and in many developing countries livestock are a valuable asset, serving as a store of wealth, collateral for credit and an essential safety net during times of crisis, with outputs making a sizeable contribution to cash income.

We also need to recall that livestock are very often central to a mixed farming system. They consume waste products from crop and food production. Livestock help to control insects and weeds. They produce manure for fertilising fields and they provide draught power for ploughing and transport. I have a vivid recollection of seeing farmers in the highlands of Ethiopia using draught cattle to pull their ploughs to give them strength to enable them to use fairly basic wooden ploughs to plough very rocky marginal land. And, of course, livestock produce milk.

At the global level, livestock contribute some 15% of total food energy and 25% of dietary protein, and indeed products from livestock provide essential nutrients that are not easily obtained from plant-based foods. So although I appreciate that there are many people who for ethical reasons do not wish to eat meat, and although those who wish to be vegetarian or vegan must of course be free to do so—I have two vegetarians and a vegan in my close family—I think it is wholly unrealistic for those who have an instinctive, ethical or intellectual opposition to livestock production to think that the world is going to abandon cattle, goat, pig or poultry production.

We have to maximise the sustainable benefits of livestock production and minimise the risks, as far as possible, and the damage that some livestock production is doing to the planet. Reducing the risks, of course, also means reducing the risks to animal and human health. I do not wish to be alarmist, but the World Organisation for Animal Health estimates that 70% of all newly emerging infectious human diseases originate in animals. At least half of the known causes of infectious diseases in humans have a reservoir in animals, and about three quarters of new diseases that have affected humans over the past 10 years are caused by pathogens originating from products of animal origin.

It is in all our interests that there should be a sustained investment in developing countries to reduce the risk to human health, and we need to think how we might enhance the capacity of poorer countries to participate in the design of better animal health and food safety standards, although I think we should always recall that it is always the poor who are at the greatest risk here. Poor people are more likely to be chronically affected by health problems that have been caused by contact with sick animals, such as brucellosis or internal parasites, and for many of the poorest families livestock disease is particularly damaging because it threatens the very asset that they use for dealing with other crises.

[Mr Nuttall]

On that point about poorer people being adversely affected, I think there is a real risk inherent in the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that because the Bill could increase the cost of meat, poorer people might have a worse diet?

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Member for North Antrim raised the very sound point that if the Bill becomes law, it may well have an effect that we have seen all too often: if one creates perversities in the UK agricultural marketplace, very often it simply results in our importing foodstuffs that have been produced in parts of the world that do not have our animal welfare standards.

We need to work with farmers and agriculture Ministers in developing countries to enhance their capacity to meet the human risks associated with livestock diseases. The most serious health threat is that of a human pandemic, and that was recently highlighted by the outbreak of a new strain of influenza A—H1N1—which contains genetic material from human, swine and poultry viruses. So it is fully understandable at a time of growing population pressure and growing urbanisation that the production of livestock, particularly pigs and poultry, is becoming more intensive, more geographically concentrated, more vertically integrated and more linked with global supply chains. But all that also has risks and what we need to be doing is maximising the potential for livestock to contribute to poverty alleviation and minimising the risks. We also need to improve food security, increase the sustainability of natural resource use and improve efforts to manage animal diseases.

I do not think that anyone challenges the need for the livestock sector to improve its environmental performance; this is about how to use resources more efficiently and how to capture the waste that livestock generate and turn it into resources. What we need, so far as is possible, is what economists would describe as producers and consumers internalising both the positive and negative factors generated by the livestock sector, so that producers and consumers pay the real price of the impacts of livestock production on natural resources and the environment and we do not steal land from, and degrade land for, future generations.

I do not believe anyone would challenge the concept that the livestock sector should seek to ensure its development is as environmentally sustainable as possible. That will require investment in agricultural research and appropriate actions along the food chain. What we are seeking to achieve is not that we campaign against farmers or producers but that we have a sustainable livestock industry, both in this country, and elsewhere in Europe and the world. But that gives rise to the question: do we need primary legislation to achieve such outcomes?

In effect, what the Bill’s supporters are saying is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should come forward with a Government-drafted and Government-devised regulatory framework to impose on the UK livestock sector. I have to say to my colleagues, particularly those on the Government Benches, that it would be considered very strange at a time when we are, in general, seeking to reduce red tape, to deregulate and, wherever possible, to reduce the burden of regulation, if we were to seek, by primary legislation, to set up a maximalist regulatory framework for Ministers to seek to regulate every livestock farmer in the United Kingdom. I suspect that if this Bill were to get into Committee, the contradictions inherent within its wording would become more apparent the more one considered it line by line and clause by clause.

The previous Government became increasingly disingenuous on private Members’ Bills to which they may have been opposed—supporting or allowing them through on Second Reading and then seeking, in effect, to talk them out on Report and Third Reading. That was disingenuous, because if one does not support a Bill, one should not vote for it on Second Reading. I do not think that Members of Parliament collectively would support the introduction of a wholesale new regulatory regime at the moment for any other sector of UK business or commercial activity, so why would they support one for farming and agriculture?

I wish to make another point about the Bill and today’s debate. The Bill is a piece of a primary legislation that has been presented to the House and it contains five clauses. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who introduced it, spoke for just 10 minutes in support of it. The Bill lists 10 sponsors, but with three honourable exceptions—my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—none has been present during the course of this debate. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) put in a fleeting appearance at the start of the debate and then disappeared, but not a sign has been seen of the other sponsors: the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George); my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone); the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher); and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley). A fundamental principle is involved here, because if those who sponsor a private Members’ Bill do not even consider it worth while to attend and speak during the debate in support of the Bill and its promoter feels able to speak for only 10 minutes in support of it, that gives very little confidence to the rest of the House that the Bill should be supported in the Lobby.

However, I also think that today’s debate, and a number of the interventions made during it, send a very clear message to UK farmers and the farming industry that they have to do a lot more to explain what they are doing with initiatives such as the greenhouse gas action plan, the beef and sheep road map, and the encouragement of sustainable soya production in Brazil and elsewhere. I am sure that farmers are, and want to be, part of the solution. Today’s debate shows that in the minds of all too many, present-day agriculture is part of the problem, and only farmers and the farming community can demonstrate that they are genuinely committed to responsible animal husbandry and sustainable livestock production.