Badger Cull

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will address her point a little later.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I will carry on before taking a few more interventions.

What I find so scandalous about the whole process, apart from the fact that the Government have disregarded scientific and public opinion, is that the Government have withheld information about the humaneness of the cull. We were assured by Ministers that of course the cull would be humane. We had crocodile tears from Government Members in the debate earlier this year, when they said how concerned they were about animal welfare and that of course the procedure would be humane.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I will give way in a moment.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is withholding information about the criteria on which the humaneness of the cull has been based. Surely if the Government have nothing to fear, they will release that information—but of course they have been singularly unwilling to do so.

Public safety has been compromised by the cull. Monitors who are there to watch over the cull have been intimidated by some of the people employed to do the culling. Shots have been fired over the heads of monitors—shots have been fired in the United Kingdom over the heads of people going about their lawful business of monitoring the activities of a cull set up by the Government. They have had shots fired over their heads! That is appalling and disgraceful, and it should be condemned by Ministers, but we have not heard any condemnation from the Government. On at least one occasion, people monitoring the culls have had their vehicle rammed by people who favour the cull.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Simon Hart]

I give way, because no one else gave way to my hon. Friend.

[Ian Paisley]

It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to take pity on me; don’t cull me.

The only body that has been sanctioned for its activities in connection with the issue is the RSPCA, which has today been accused by the Advertising Standards Authority of being alarmist because of what it has said.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

I have 21 seconds left, so I shall say that farmers do a fantastic job. They have been through hell in the past 20 or 30 years, and animal welfare organisations have been involved only in the past few years. To my mind, for my family, in my area and for my constituents, farmers are the celebrities we should listen to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate your stewardship of the debate, Mr Weir. I want to make three brief points and try to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak as well.

I am a member of the British Veterinary Association and I think that the aspersions cast on the British Veterinary Association today—the character assassination that was attempted—were wrong and shameful. The many Labour party-supporting vets up and down this country will, I am sure, be very concerned at the way in which they were character-assassinated today by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I think that he should consider what he said, because his passion in the debate does not give him a right to character-assassinate members of the British Veterinary Association, who have the interests and welfare of all animals in this country at heart.

When I intervened earlier, I mentioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and I was concerned that its advertising campaign is the only thing that publicly, by an independent body, has been described as “alarmist” in terms of how it has tried to suggest that the only thing to do is vaccinate or exterminate. I wish that we could vaccinate our wildlife in this country and protect it all, but we have to be realists and to make a judgment call about what is more important: sacrificing a few wild animals to ensure that our beef and milking herds up and down this country are protected from a pernicious and nasty disease that ruins lives and ruins many thousands of our cattle in this country, or not doing that. We have to face reality.

The rant from the hon. Gentleman today was very disappointing, because he failed at every opportunity—

[Andrew George]

To take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Paisley]

No, not to take an intervention; I do not care if the hon. Member for Derby North does not want to hear an intervention from me. He failed to take the chance to support our bovine herd and our farmers and basically tried to portray a picture of it being either them or us. We are all in this one; we have to find a solution to it; and we have to recognise that if an animal is carrying a pernicious disease, it needs to be put down, not only for its own welfare, but for the welfare of the bovine herd.

Badger Vaccines

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[David Morris]

I agree totally. Vaccination increases herd immunity, while culling increases the spread of disease.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

For the record, I am a member of the British Veterinary Association. May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? Does he agree that a vaccine does not cure an infected beast and that, if a beast is infected, it must be culled?

[David Morris]

Despite a massive cull in southern Ireland, of 97,000 badgers, the rates of TB in the north, where there were no culls, are still the same. If a badger with TB is vaccinated, it will not be cured, but if it reproduces, its young will be immune.

[Ian Paisley]

It is important that people understand what the vaccine does. The beast is trapped and tested: if it has the disease, it is culled; but if the test is not positive and it is free of the disease, it is injected. However, it has to be injected for the next five years—caught every year and injected—and that costs about £3,000 per beast.

[David Morris]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I understand his argument. In the culling at the moment, however, badgers are being trapped and shot—there is only one sentence for them, if caught, and that is to be killed.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We are keen to learn lessons from around the country and around the world, so we are looking at the work going on in Wales. I have to say that it is not that encouraging at the moment; a vaccination-only strategy is not seen to be working particularly well, but we will study the results closely. I am also interested in following what is going on in Northern Ireland, where they are trapping and then vaccinating badgers that they believe are not infected and culling those that are. We are also keen to learn lessons from countries such as Australia, which has pursued policies similar to ours.

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. With regards to the vaccine for cattle and cows, which he touched on at the beginning—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale also asked about this issue—will the Minister take the opportunity to make it abundantly clear that if a vaccine is given to a cow, it makes the cow test positive? That makes it indistinguishable from an affected beast when it is tested, which leads to one conclusion: the cow is slaughtered. We have to get away from pursuing the idea that there is some sort of magic bullet, or magic pill, that can be used to vaccinate a cow and not lead to its being slaughtered.

[George Eustice]

I do not want to get drawn too far into cattle vaccination, but the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to perfect the so-called DIVA test that differentiates between the two. It is clear that it will take some time. The European Commission has put a time frame of 10 years on getting to that stage. I would like that to be quicker, but we have to be realistic—there is a lot to be done.

I come back to supporting badger vaccination. DEFRA operates a badger vaccination fund; in the current year, that has prioritised support for vaccination in the “edge area”. The fund offers start-up grants of 50% to fund the first year of vaccinations. Having said that, it is true to say that applications this year have been a bit disappointing. We are now looking to understand precisely why that is, so that we can get it right next year. Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, we are keen to work with all those groups, including voluntary groups, who would like to participate, and to work out how we can get them engaged in that.

I also intend to discuss a plan that the hon. Member for St Ives has on the issue—I have promised to meet him and Rosie Woodroffe. The Department has made a modest commitment to support some vaccination in that regard and he has some ideas; we are keen to pursue that option and look at it.

Horsemeat

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I shall try to bear your comments in mind, Mr Speaker.

I beg to move,

That this House notes that up to 100 per cent horsemeat has been found in supermarket and branded processed meat products and that horsemeat has been found at the premises of a UK meat processing plant; notes with concern that seven horses which tested positive for phenylbutazone (bute) contamination have entered the human food chain, including one in England; further notes that meat supplied to UK prisons, labelled Halal, has tested positive for pork DNA; recognises that the Irish government and Northern Irish Executive have called in the police and specialist fraud units to tackle the problem of horsemeat adulteration; further recognises that thousands of jobs depend on consumer confidence in the UK and Irish meat industries; and calls on the Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate the criminal networks involved in horsemeat adulteration, to speed up the Food Standards Agency official tests so that results are back in 14 days and restore consumer confidence in the meat industry by working with the food industry and other EU member states and EU institutions to define new testing, labelling and traceability standards for the meat industry to protect consumers from fraud.

It is four weeks to the day since the Irish authorities told the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers, and 10 million suspect burgers were withdrawn. Products from Tesco, Iceland, Co-op, Lidl and Aldi have all tested positive for horsemeat. The burgers came from Silvercrest Foods in Ireland and Dalepak Hambleton in Yorkshire, subsidiaries of the ABP Food Group. A third company—Liffey Meats in County Cavan in Ireland—was also found to be supplying products with horse DNA.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to correct comments that she made in column 612 of yesterday’s Hansard? She said that 70,000 horses are unaccounted for in Northern Ireland and being sold in the lucrative horsemeat trade. That is not the case; the evidence relates to the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a responsible organisation and made the claims not about Northern Ireland but about the Republic. Will she join me in a cross-party promotion of Northern Ireland’s red meat sector, which produces among the best, most traced and tastiest food in this country? I would be delighted if she agreed that our border is more secure than a slip of the tongue on the Front Bench.

[Mr Speaker]

We are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has now made his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

The shadow Secretary of State is again ahead of the game with respect to what I will say in my speech. I said yesterday in my statement that I have a gut feeling—actually, it is a clear belief—that too much is taken on trust in the current system. Too often, it is taken on trust that when a truck is loaded, the contents of the pallets are marked on the manifest and the certificate. From that point on, nothing is looked at. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) that we need to do more testing. I discussed that yesterday and again this morning with Lord Rooker. When this is all over, there will be a process of learning the lessons. I will be keen to establish more systematic testing of products so that we actually look at the material. That answers some of the hon. Lady’s questions about the Freeza plant in Northern Ireland. At the moment, the system is very much paper-based and too much is taken on trust.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that has already been learned is that it is a fallacy that people can have cheap food and quality food? The two do not go hand in hand. We have to educate the marketplace and the consumer that if people want good-quality, tasty food, they have to pay for it. Chasing the notion of cheap food, which many supermarkets have done irresponsibly, will be the ruination of a vital industry.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but I think that we have to be careful. There are citizens in this country who want to buy a product for speed and convenience, but who do not want to pay a premium price. They deserve exactly the same rigorous quality standards and exactly the same adherence to what is on the label as everybody else. If they buy a cheaper product marked “processed beef”, they should jolly well get processed beef. They should be as aggrieved as anyone who buys the most expensive sirloin steak if what they buy is not what it says on the label. If people in this country buy a cheap product, they should get a good product that conforms to the label. That is an important principle for consumers and one that I have discussed with the retailers.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

Consultation is taking place on that measure. My hon. Friend the Minister of State who is summing up the debate as the Minister with responsibility for farming will, I am sure, be able to enlighten the House further on that point.

What will the adjudicator do? The adjudicator’s role is to investigate large retailers and hold them to account if they have broken the groceries code. He or she will also be able to act as an arbitrator to resolve private disputes between suppliers and large supermarkets, as the groceries supply order envisages. Aside from these main roles, the adjudicator will have a number of other functions. These are to publish guidance on when and how investigations will proceed and how enforcement powers will be used, to advise large retailers and suppliers on the groceries code, to recommend changes to the groceries code to the Office of Fair Trading, to arbitrate individual disputes between large retailers and the direct suppliers, as mentioned, or to appoint another person to do so, and to report annually on his or her work, which will be laid before Parliament.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister knows that the adjudicator cannot do any of those things until they have published the guidance under clause 12. The adjudicator can take up to six months before publishing the guidance. Have the Government any intention of bringing that date forward so that the adjudicator can get down to this important business as soon as possible?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman expresses an understandable desire to make sure that the role of adjudicator can be up and running as soon as possible. We all share that desire. I am sure, however, that he would not want the publication of the guidance to be rushed. Although I would be happy if the adjudicator, once in place, decides that the full six months is not needed and the guidance can be published earlier, it would not be wise to force a faster timetable if that was not felt to be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and we will take that debate forward to Committee. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been downgraded under this Government—indeed, the Beecroft review recommended that it be scrapped. We must be vigilant and ensure that the great work done by that authority in saving lives and stopping exploitation continues, and we can debate that in Committee. If I look towards the Whips, perhaps my hon. Friend will join us on that Committee to make those points—his name is being jotted down as we speak.

I was talking about the huge impact and value that supermarkets bring to our economy. The groceries market was worth nearly £157 billion in 2011, and it provides significant choice and good value for customers, which is vital. A number of supermarkets in my constituency do a tremendous job through investment in our high streets, job creation, and supporting community projects, and I am grateful to them for that positive role. I also place on record my thanks to Sainsbury’s at Cameron Toll in my constituency for its continued support for my schools Christmas card competition. Likewise, farmers and small suppliers play a critical part in achieving economic growth. It is an incredibly difficult time to be a farmer or small supplier in the UK—there have been increases in feed prices, not to mention the difficulties that many small and medium-sized enterprises have experienced in accessing finance. We should set retailer abuses against that backdrop.

We should acknowledge that retailers have done much to clean up their supply chains, but we know that abuses by retailers against suppliers still occur, and that evidence supports the need for a groceries code adjudicator more than ever. FoodDrinkEurope, the European federation, surveyed businesses from around Europe anonymously. It asked whether businesses had been confronted by various situations, and the survey gives us a picture of the situation in the UK. Seventy-seven per cent. of businesses said they had experienced non-respective contractual terms; 75% said they had experienced de-listing threats to obtain unjustified advantages; and 60% said they had experienced unilateral deductions to invoices. Only a very small number of the businesses interviewed—3%—said that they had done something other than discuss the situation with their customers. When asked why, more than half said they did not believe in the effectiveness of the remedies by public or legal authorities, and 44% said they were afraid of commercial sanctions. In one case of which I am aware, the supplier—a salad grower based in Yorkshire—said:

“The retailer has reneged on a commitment to cover the costs of packaging should they terminate dealings with me at short notice—despite this being confirmed”

on numerous occasions in e-mails.

[Ian Paisley]

Given those statistics, does the hon. Gentleman believe that food producers will feel emboldened to come forward and make their complaints if no financial penalty is front and centre in the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need proper sanctions—we need to take the carrot-and-stick approach. Without proper fines in the Bill, the adjudicator could, as the Minister said, be a toothless dog or tiger. I will come to that shortly.

There are times when a market needs intervention to make competition work well, particularly if players in that market become too powerful. Roughly 3.6 million people are employed in food production in this country, and making competition in that market function more fairly through the introduction of the adjudicator is ultimately good for growth and for those jobs. It will undoubtedly also be good for consumers in the long term. Because the choice of products is supported, small suppliers and products will not be driven from the market by anti-competitive practices, which hon. Members have mentioned. The choice of retailers will also be supported, because small retailers will not be driven from the market by the disparity in buying terms, which can be exacerbated by anti-competitive practices. Suppliers will be better able to plan their businesses, yielding efficiencies. Critically, they will be able to invest in innovation, new products and product quality. Finally, more competition will hopefully bring down prices.

The benefits of a strong adjudicator are clear, but fundamentally the Opposition’s major concern is that the adjudicator will be toothless. The adjudicator must have teeth to tackle the breaches of which all hon. Members are aware.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), on starting this Second Reading debate so eloquently. I want to make some comments as the representative of growers and farmers in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, and I want to share with the House the evidence that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee has heard on these matters.

I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading. I have some common ground with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South on these issues, but probably more with my hon. Friend the Minister. I also have common ground and differences with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who chairs the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee.

We should perhaps pause for a moment to consider the marketplace in which some of the growers we hope will benefit from the Bill are operating. They tend to be very small producers of each vegetable or form of produce, and they are often small in number. There is absolutely no comparison with the size, volume and financial weight of supermarkets.

I welcome the fact that we have reached Second Reading and I welcome the useful amendments made in the other place, but there has been a long gestation period from the Competition Commission report of 2008. I would like to record the thanks of the DEFRA Committee to those who gave written evidence and, more specifically, oral evidence in the context of our brief inquiry. We shared our conclusions with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Some of the points we made have been adopted, but it is worth repeating them today.

We welcome the fact that an adjudicator is going to be established, and we believe that the adjudicator should have the power to accept complaints from indirect as well as direct suppliers. Will the Minister confirm that suppliers will have the ability to make anonymous complaints, which we believe will be fundamental to the success of the groceries code adjudicator?

In a limited market—in Lincolnshire, for example, and other parts of the country—where there are very few leek growers, if one of them wished to make a complaint against a particular supermarket, it would be too easy for the supermarket to identify that particular grower. It is therefore vital that the grower has the safety of knowing that an anonymous complaint can be made to the adjudicator—either directly or, as forcefully expressed by our Committee, through an indirect route via the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association or the Tenant Farmers Association. They are membership organisations that will represent the individual grower, who will then be able to make a case, safe from persecution and safe from the possibility of having the contract terminated at an early stage.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady makes a vital point. If a potato processor or person producing potatoes in Northern Ireland were to make that sort of complaint, it would in effect be one of three people, so a middle way of getting the complaint through must be found.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman reaffirms my point very eloquently. He would probably share my view—and I hope that Ministers and shadow Ministers will grasp it—that the security of tenure of some of these growers is absolutely shocking. That is in stark contrast to—albeit another woeful situation—what happens in the dairy industry. A cheese producer in my area contacted me to say that some of the milk supplies for cheese production—a liquid production that we are so good at in this country—are being threatened. The growers that I believe will benefit more directly and more specifically than dairy farmers and others sometimes have only three months’ security of tenure or certainty of contract—not even a year. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can help me—whether the Bill will address this disparity between producers of, for example, milk and potatoes, and others. With the groceries code adjudicator, will these producers and growers gain greater security of contract than the three months or less than a year that they have at present?

Let me explain what I believe to be the sticking point. I hope I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh South correctly as I think he said he would favour the power to have proactive investigations. I believe that that is vital. I should declare my interest—I know that what I say here will not go further than this Chamber, but I also know that if someone wants to tell a secret, this is the best place in which to share it. I served for six months—in 1978, I am afraid to say—in what is now called DG Competition but was then the Directorate General for Competition, dealing with investigations of complaints brought directly to the European Commission. I understand that the Competition Commission is based on the same philosophy, as it were, as DG Competition.

I should like to know what good reason the Government could have for not introducing a power for the groceries code adjudicator to launch a proactive investigation. It could be based on evidence received by word of mouth, or on material in trade journals. Journalists working in the specialist press often hear things at conferences to which others are not privy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The production of food is our most important industry. Let us pause and think about that for one moment. The production of food is our most important industry, not just for what it earns for our economy and what it achieves, but because of what it says about us as a nation and what we are prepared to promote to our people to eat.

Consumers are becoming more and more aware of food traceability and of the importance of our nation’s ability to produce good quality, tasty, traceable food with as little intervention as possible of chemicals, and a clear process chain for the production of that food so that we understand food stability, food security, and what real agricultural sustainability is all about. The Bill before the House is so important because it is about understanding the mechanisms and the balances that make up our most important industry.

I do not fear to predict that the production of food over the next few years will become the most important topic in our nation during this century. I say that because of the threat posed by huge cartels and their interests to the production of good quality, tasty food. Handling and protecting our most important industry and doing all we can to ensure that we continue to produce the best quality, tasty, traceable food that our people have come to enjoy and expect should be a key priority not just for the Government, but for everyone in the House.

When I made my maiden speech, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke to me afterwards because I had focused on agriculture and the subject of creating a food ombudsman. I was delighted to learn from the hon. Gentleman about the pioneering work that he had tried to do under the previous Government, and it is a huge tribute to him that we have got so far that the House is on the verge of legislating on something so critical to our food security and our food interests. I congratulate him.

I say all this in the knowledge that if we introduce a food ombudsman or a supermarkets adjudicator, there will be certain consequences. One is that we as a nation must educate our people that food can no longer be regarded as a cheap commodity. If we want good quality, traceable, digestible, beneficial food produced in a sustainable way that continues to employ people on a living wage, that will not be done cheaply. We must therefore ensure that the food chain is transparent and that people understand why a certain price must be paid.

Those who would undermine that by marketeering cheap food to our people and bringing cheap food in vast quantities from overseas undermine our ability to produce quality food, ruin the industry and hasten the day when we will have limited choice as a nation and be forced to pay the highest of high prices for food. That is why we must protect the primary and key producers of food in our nation.

The Bill is a good Bill but, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, some improvements could be made to make it a brilliant Bill, and we should strive to do that. The Bill is not intended, for example, to deal with commercial issues such as the producer price differential which exists between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That is particularly important for me in Northern Ireland because of two things. The first is water —17 miles of it between my island and your island, which adds to the price of food and food production, and the demands put on a primary producer in my country when he wishes to supply one of the 10 great supermarkets here on the mainland. The second is climate and the fact that it is considerably colder where I come from, which has a detrimental effect. I see that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) seems to think that it is colder where he comes from. Well, he can keep that cold, as far as I am concerned.

We could improve the Bill if we address those issues through the powers of the adjudicator. We should also deal with some of the practices of processors and other intermediaries in the processing of food. That is another critical area left out of the Bill, but it is an area that we should at least try to address. The inability to impose fines at the outset is another flaw that needs to be addressed. I was brought up in a political school which said, “If you want to deter someone, let that person know that if they get into a fight with you, you’re going to kick them where it hurts. That usually deters a person from having a fight with you, but if that person is so unfortunate that they still want to have a fight with you, then kick them where it hurts and they probably won’t fight with you again.” That just happens to be the school of political brawl I was brought up in. It usually works, and with some effect.

The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, Mr Harry Sinclair, wrote to all Northern Ireland MPs at the weekend, stating that

“we firmly believe that the ‘teeth’ necessary to secure compliance needs to be much stronger”

and that fining should therefore be set out in the Bill. I believe that the Government should listen to those words and deter the supermarkets.

I agree with a huge amount of what the Minister said, especially when she said that the supermarkets like to spend a lot of money on advertising. I was once told that 50% of all money spent on advertising works and 50% is completely wasted. The problem for the supermarkets is that they do not know which 50% is which, so they would spend less if they knew what advertising actually works. I believe that some of the supermarkets would not necessarily wear the publicity they got as a badge of shame, but they might feel honoured to wear it. We really need to move away from the nonsensical idea that bad publicity in itself will be sufficient deterrent for the supermarkets, because it will not be enough. We must let the supermarkets know that if they price-fix, because they are a cartel, they will be kicked where it hurts, and that will have an effect.

We must also ensure that we bring about a new relationship that rebalances the primary producers’ impact on the market with that of the supermarkets. The only way to do that is by ensuring that we reward the farmer for the sweat and toil that he or she puts into the land to make the best quality, most traceable and tastiest food we can get. I believe that the only way we can do that is by establishing a new relationship, not one in which the farmer is king, but one in which he is at least treated equally and feels that his sweat will be rewarded with a fair price. He should be able to encourage his children to aspire to be farmers, rather than having to tell them, “Go somewhere else, because there is no reward in this and you won’t be able to make a living, raise a family or spend money on the things you want.”

Therefore, we must establish a new relationship that at least treats farmers as equals and allows them to be regarded as such. Otherwise, over the next 20 years our agricultural sector will continue to be dashed and to fall and we will find ourselves held in the grip of outside interests beyond the shores of this nation that will sell us what they want, which will not necessarily be good, clean, traceable or tasty, and they will sell it at their price. Therefore, we have to get this right and get it right now, because, as I said at the beginning of my comments, it is our most important industry. It is about what we tell our people they should eat and what is good for them.

Although the adjudicator is an important part of the process of getting to that stage, I believe that it is only one part of a cocktail of necessary measures. We must have price transparency—having the adjudicator is, of course, one way of providing price transparency—so that the consumer knows why they have paid a certain amount for steak, poultry, pork or other products, what it has cost the farmer to produce, what it has cost the processor to process and make good for them and what it has cost the supermarket to retail. They must know each cost along the supply chain, because otherwise they are being robbed of a vital thing: knowledge about what they are being shown they should eat.

We should also have clear food labelling and ensure that we know whether a product has been made in the United Kingdom or was brought in from elsewhere. In many instances there is nothing wrong with food brought in from elsewhere, but we should at least have clear labelling so that we know where it is from. We should also ensure not only that we encourage our products to be sold here in the United Kingdom, through good procurement policies in our schools and hospitals, but that it is marketed abroad. All these issues can ensure that those involved in the most important industry in our land are encouraged to continue to produce the best, cleanest, tastiest and most traceable food possible.

Badger Cull

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not give way; I want to follow what Mr Speaker said and make some progress.

The case against culling on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness is overwhelming. That approach is also potentially entirely counter-productive. The independent scientific group initially found a decrease in the disease of approximately 23% in the centre of the culled area but an increase of approximately 29% on neighbouring land outside the culled area. Those results can be explained partly by what has been termed the perturbation effect. That has been studied by Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who has also found that repeated badger culling in the same area is associated with increasing prevalence of the BTB infection in badgers.

The objective of the Government and the NFU is healthy cattle and healthy badgers. I agree with that, but how does culling improve badger health? Professor Woodroffe states unequivocally that it does exactly the opposite and that

“all the evidence shows that culling badgers increases the proportion of badgers that have TB”.

Yet the Government’s approach ignores that evidence. As with the ISG trials, conditions have been imposed to try to limit the effects of perturbation, such as identifying natural barriers to badger movement, but these have generally been less rigorous than those recommended, with farmers essentially being encouraged to develop a “not in my back yard” approach to cattle TB without any real thought for the long-term impact on rates of the disease elsewhere.

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State warned that the cost to the taxpayer of tackling bovine TB will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked. I agree that that is a very alarming prospect. That is why it is crucial that on this, as well as on the scientific evidence, he listens to the experts who, let me remind him, have concluded:

“The financial costs of culling an idealized 150 km² area would exceed the savings achieved through reduced cattle TB, by factors of 2 to 3.5.”

DEFRA has tried to keep the costs down by allowing licensed farmers to do the culling in its planned pilots and allowing for the licences to permit shooting, but by cutting corners in that way it undermines the very effectiveness that it claims for a culling strategy.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way on this important and passionately felt issue. I speak as a member of the British Veterinary Association, which states in its most recent report, first, that culling is necessary, and secondly, that there is no available vaccination that can address the reservoir of the disease within the wildlife population of badgers. Is she aware that this year 30,000 cattle will have to be slaughtered because of bovine TB? What are we going to do about that problem?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. In fact, a vaccine is a lot closer to being developed than he and others suggest, so there are alternatives to culling. Earlier in the week, the Secretary of State made much of saying that there no alternatives. The tragedy is that there are alternatives but this Government seem extremely reluctant to bring them forward.

On tackling cattle-to-cattle transmission of the disease, the ISG report states:

“Movement of cattle from infected herds in the periods between routine herd tests has long been recognised as a cause of new herd breakdowns, and it is generally accepted that most of the sporadic herd breakdowns in relatively disease-free areas of the country result from movement of infected animals.”

The evidence suggests that focusing on the role of badgers in the spread of bovine TB is a distraction and that priority should instead be given to preventing the spread of the disease between cattle. That is why the motion calls on the Government to introduce a programme of vaccination, which eminent scientist and former Government scientific adviser Lord Robert May points to as an important tool in tackling TB. He says:

“What is particularly irritating is that we have the vaccines in the pipeline, but the commitment to really go in and test them is…not there”.

DEFRA confirms that. A statement on its own website reads:

“BCG…is the most suitable cattle TB vaccine candidate in the short term. Experimental studies show that BCG vaccination reduces the progression, severity and excretion of TB in cattle…and field studies show that it can reduce transmission of disease between animals.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Trying to kill badgers is also extremely difficult. The original randomised badger culling trial was about killing badgers by capturing them in cages first, but the Government have dismissed that as too expensive. In doing so, they have reduced the likely effectiveness of the policy. It will lead to people trying to shoot badgers, which are difficult to kill outright because of their shape and size. That is extremely costly, and crucially it also spreads the disease even more widely. Vaccinating badgers is not easy, but it is a lot easier than shooting them in the way that the Government propose. It is also an awful lot more effective in stopping the spread of TB. That seems to me a good argument for not going ahead with shooting.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Lady give way again on that point?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Rather than pursuing an approach that is widely discredited, should not the Government invest in studies to determine exactly how and whether badger vaccination can work on a larger scale, in co-operation with organisations such as the National Trust and the wildlife trusts, which are already taking a lead in carrying out vaccine trials?

I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I can see that you are looking a little perturbed. Even were all that I have said about the science, the alternatives to a cull and its lack of effectiveness to be discounted, the Government’s proposals remain deeply flawed. Although the pilot culls in west Gloucestershire and west Somerset have been postponed, I am sure that other Members will want to raise concerns that the specific licensing criteria that were set out would not have been met. They will also want to raise concerns about the degree to which the Government’s current policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT, despite advice from experts that the more a future culling policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT, the more likely it is that their effects will differ and that there will be variability in outcomes between areas. Professor Bourne, chairman of the independent scientific group, claims that the key differences between his team’s methodology and the Government’s pilot culls—including a very different killing method and much longer killing period—are “significant”. Although he has been mentioned by those on the other side of the argument, he stated that the cull,

“could make TB a damn sight worse.”

The news that badger numbers are higher than anticipated suggests that methods used by Natural England to set the minimum and maximum number of badgers that can be killed across licensed zones are inaccurate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on the generous way in which she introduced this debate. It is a difficult debate, but the hon. Lady should be recognised for allowing people to intervene and ensuring that a proper debate took place. She knows that I come from a different perspective, but I congratulate her again on introducing the debate so well.

Bovine TB is a complex, infectious, zoonotic disease in animals and in man. It is caused by a bacterium that presents itself as a serious and significant risk to animal health, and it is especially prevalent among the UK cattle herd and among wildlife—mainly badgers. It is one of the UK’s most significant animal health issues. We discussed earlier in the week the significant cost posed by this disease to the economy—effectively 100 million smackaroos a year. We are talking about 100 million quid every year; that is what this disease costs, and we need to accept that it is a major problem or a crisis.

Frankly, some of the debate has been tainted by misinformation and by some emotion—emotion that is misplaced in this argument, because this nation deserves the House debating this matter properly and with some authority. No one takes the decision to cull wildlife or to cull our national milk herd lightly. For people to suggest otherwise is criminal, and we should recognise that and state it clearly.

We should also recognise some of the myths that have been put about. It is said that this is about town versus country, which is utter piffle. This is about animal health; it is about animal welfare and good animal husbandry; it is about our milking herd and our cattle; and—most importantly—it is about the food that we eat and are prepared to tell our consumers to eat. We should not lose sight of that.

People say that this cull is a shot in the dark, which will lead to the indiscriminate killing of wildlife. That is misinformation, which has the potential to “felon set” those who are asked to carry out the cull. We should consider the consequences of careless talk about indiscriminate shooting. There is also the nonsense about a readily available vaccine that will solve the problem. There is no vaccine that will have an impact on wild badgers that are already infected. The reservoir of badgers that carry the disease cannot be controlled by a vaccine.

“All badgers will die” is another piece of misinformation. It is said that this is about the mass slaughter of animals. As many Members have pointed out—as, indeed, the Government have pointed out—it is not about mass slaughter, but about a targeted pilot in a limited area of the United Kingdom that will be cordoned off. That cordon sanitaire will allow target shooting.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious remarks. However, in condemning misinformation, he is also spreading it. He says that vaccination has no effect on infected badgers, but in fact it slows the progress and the severity of the disease. It reduces the risk that the animal will become infectious, and therefore reduces the chance that one badger will pass it to another or, indeed, to cattle.

[Ian Paisley]

That is a relevant point. I shall say more about the vaccine issue in a moment.

The hon. Lady commended the work of the British Veterinary Association, of which I am a long-term member. Let us hear the expert views of that association. Its most recent report on bovine TB states:

“Whilst the slaughter of cattle found to be infected with TB…has been an essential part of the strategy to control the disease in cattle for many years, the BVA believes that targeted, managed and humane badger culling is also necessary in carefully selected areas where badgers are regarded as a significant contributor to the persistent presence of bTB. In addition, the BVA believes that risk-based biosecurity, surveillance and Farm Health Planning at a national, regional and farm level is essential for the control”

of the spread of the disease. In other words, we need a cocktail of measures that includes culling on a limited basis.

[Andrew Miller]

I acknowledge that, as a member of the British Veterinary Association, the hon. Gentleman has expertise in the subject, but the BVA also says in its briefing:

“We do not know how successful the proposed methods will be.”

Does he agree that what we really need is significant investment in research on zoonotic diseases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It goes without saying that the research must be carried out, that it must be ongoing and that it must not be prevented as a result of what we are trying to do here.

I commend the Republic of Ireland—shock, horror, stop the presses: Paisley commends Republic of Ireland!—which has already carried out a cull. I should make it clear that this has nothing to do with jealousy on the part of those of us north of the border who do not get to shoot. The cull in the south of Ireland has led to a significant reduction in confirmed new infection rates among cattle herds. I believe that if this scheme is tried and proved to be effective, especially in countries where a land border is shared with another nation, we should adopt it. I believe that we should be learning—yes indeed, learning—from the Irish Republic on this important matter. I am happy to concede that point.

The BVA made a strong and significant point about vaccination. Although the badger BCG vaccine is currently available and undoubtedly plays a role in managing the disease, it is not proven to protect fully against infection. It merely reduces the progression and severity of the disease in animals that become infected later, and it has no impact on those infected prior to vaccination. We in Northern Ireland are currently carrying out a trapping test; we are trying to get animals trapped. As has been suggested, perhaps we should only use trapping to cull badgers.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman must accept that as badgers die at a very rapid rate—25% attrition each year—vaccination would result in a significant decrease of infection in badgers, whereas culling increases the preponderance of infection in badgers.

[Ian Paisley]

We have to accept that culling is not a silver bullet—it is not the magic answer—but vaccination is not the magic answer either. We have to try to tackle this problem, however. We have to continue searching for a vaccine that will work and will not destroy our herds and prevent us from selling our product.

We have to try this cull to see whether it can succeed. The costs are £100 million a year. We have to do something. This is robbing money from our hospitals, schools and roads. We are wasting taxpayers’ money; we are pouring it down the drain. We have got to address this problem.

The BVA has made it clear that there is no existing data to prove that badger vaccination has an impact on the incidence of BTB in cattle. Even if it does, it will have a much slower impact than the removal of badgers by culling.

I want to say a few words on the impact of TB in Northern Ireland. We have spent £200 million in the last six years trying to eradicate the disease, but we have failed. We want to spend £20 million this year trying to do it, and we are going to fail—and we are going to wipe out a number of our best milking herds. We also have criminals in Northern Ireland who deliberately try to infect herds so that they can get compensation. This problem has got to be addressed now. I hope the Government have got the guts to get on and do it. It will not be nice—it is not going to be pleasant—but we have to solve this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend. If he thinks it is bad in Bracknell, he should come to North Shropshire. This is an absolute priority for us. At one bound, broadband overcomes the centuries-long disadvantage of working in a rural area. We are determined to roll it out, which is why I am working closely with my Cabinet colleagues and why we have relaxed the planning constraints for five years—to get this through and done.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

No, Secretary of State: come to Rathlin Island—the situation there is absolutely abominable. It is an island off an island that requires reliable broadband so that people who require medical scripts and everything else can get them quickly. I hope that he rolls out the new broadband service across the whole of the UK, including Ulster and Rathlin Island.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to Rathlin Island. He will be pleased to know that I was there a few months ago, in my previous post—it has the most wonderful puffin reserve, which is well worth visiting. He touched on health, which is an important element. We all think about the business angle, but there are real advantages in delivering health care in rural areas. Another key element is helping elderly people, for whom it is a boon, when they are isolated, to be able to contact their relations, shop online and stay in touch with the real world.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend emphatically that we will stand by this policy. As I have said, there is no country in the western world where such policies do not apply. We should consider the situation in New Zealand with possums and that in Australia with buffalo, and look at what every other western European country is doing. A cull is taking place in Ireland as we speak. On Monday I talked to a farmer in Burgundy, where badgers are not protected. There is no other country where they are not bearing down on disease in wildlife and in cattle. We have to do both.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

This is probably not the auspicious start that the Secretary of State wanted on the DEFRA Front Bench. No one takes the cull of badgers lightly, but what is the Department’s plan B? The Secretary of State has said, in effect, that over the next 12 months, until next summer, 30,000 cattle will be slaughtered and his Department will have to pick up the bill of £100 million. In Northern Ireland it will be £20 million and a vast amount of cattle will be slaughtered as a result of bovine TB. I hope that we are not witnessing the eradication of the Department’s courage to follow through with a policy that could change things.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, until we get a grip on this, these horrendous slaughter figures will continue at an horrendous cost and cause horrendous damage to famers’ livelihoods and their families. That is clear, but we have to respect the science. The NFU told me this morning that it cannot achieve the 70% and, if we agree with the science, which states that if we cull less than 70% we provoke perturbation, I have to respect that advice. The hon. Gentleman is from Northern Ireland, so he knows perfectly well the value of a cull. The four counties trial showed a 96% reduction in Donegal. There is no question but that bearing down on wildlife and cattle will eradicate the disease eventually.

Lead Shot

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I read the hon. Gentleman’s excellent article in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine last week. It shows his commitment to country sports over the years. The lead in his leg has done him no harm, just as the lead in the pigeons, ducks and pheasants that I have eaten has done me no harm.

Research in the United Kingdom showed that a high proportion of the game sold for human consumption had lead concentrations exceeding the European Union maximum. We are well aware of the issue. The European Food Safety Authority expert on contaminants published a scientific opinion on lead in food and has stated that other animals in the food chain—sheep, pigs and poultry—carry lead too. The report details the potential health risks that may be associated with a diet rich in game, but people would need to eat a lot of pheasants or venison every year before they were affected, or in my case, a lot of wood pigeons. They would have to eat a dozen a day.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for getting this important subject on to the Order Paper. It is important that the House is aware of the issues he is raising. Does he agree, however, that there could be a self-created crisis by elements in various agencies who want to justify their existence? They point to potential problems if we eat too much of something, but by definition too much of anything is bad for us.

[Jim Shannon]

It is good to put things into perspective. Too much wine is bad for us. Too much chocolate is bad for us. Too many chips are not always that good for us either. As someone who ate plenty of sweet stuff and is now a diabetic, I know that the sweet stuff I ate over the years was not good for me. Many in the land have to look at those things too; my hon. Friend’s words put things into perspective.

An article I read last week also helps to put the issue into perspective. It referred to the Food Standards Agency, and there was an important reply:

“There is lead in all foodstuffs and we should see the purported risk of lead in game meat in a sensible perspective…There is no evidence of harm to those of us who eat game less than once every week. Compared with other meats wild game is low in fats and entirely natural, representing a healthy option to intensively reared products.”

That certainly makes for interesting reading. There is no better stuff to eat than game. If Members have not eaten a pheasant this year, they should try one. If they have not had duck, now is the time. If they have not had wood pigeon, they should go down the shop and buy one. They will enjoy it; it is excellent. If they are lucky enough to be able to afford venison, that is good, too; I recommend it to everyone in the House.

The body set up to deal with the issue, the Lead Ammunition Group, is taking the matter seriously. It is not ignoring people’s concerns, but it is putting things into perspective. I am sure that the report that will come out will address the subject. I was given a report by the European Food Safety Authority that clearly shows that although game has a higher lead content—we accept that—it is not seen as a contributory factor to having too much lead in one’s diet. Bread, tea, tap water and potatoes provide a significant amount of lead in the diet and they are all things that we sit down and consume on a Sunday, and eat and drink regularly; they have an impact on us, too.

That is one reason why I believe that although there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction, there is cause for investigation. The Food Standards Agency recently issued advice to high-level consumers of game, and I have already quoted what it said. Perhaps that will put the danger into perspective. I stress that the advice is aimed only at those who eat large amounts of small game—more than 100 or 120 pheasants, partridges or ducks a year—and large game, such as venison, is not included. Even the most fervent game-eater would never consume that much, and even if they did, the rest of their diet keeps things in balance.

Now that the advice has been given, small game is added to a list of many other foods, including oily fish and tuna, that the FSA suggests should not be eaten more than twice a week. It also joins the myriad foods that woman are advised to avoid while pregnant; there is no one present in the Chamber to which that would apply. According to data from the European Food Safety Authority, which provided the bulk of the evidence for the report that I am referring to, eating the suggested daily minimum of five portions of fruit and vegetables and drinking one litre of tap water provides enough dietary lead to exceed the threshold for young children by a factor of two. If a person eats their five a day, and drinks water, they will already be over the limit, before game is added. Other foods, including chocolate and mushrooms, have a very high level of lead; some chocolate has more, weight for weight, than pheasant. The EFSA rates many everyday foods as being among those that contribute most to lead levels in the average diet, and game is not among the ones that Europe is looking at.

Game is enjoyed by many people across the country as a lean and flavoursome alternative to other meats, and I recommend it. I have been consuming game for many years, and I am not aware of any person who suffers health-related issues as a result of consuming game shot with lead ammunition; neither is any shooting body with which I have spoken. In addition, data from the NHS hospital episode statistics show that there is a very low number of lead poisoning cases, compared with cases of poisoning caused by other toxic substances. To put this into perspective, between 1998 and 2011, 19.6 people a year on average were admitted for treatment for the toxic effects of lead. By comparison, 125 people a year on average are admitted for the toxic effect of soap and detergent, 982 for the toxic effect of ethanol, 69 for the toxic effect of ingested mushrooms, and 40 for the toxic effect of snake venom. That puts the issue of lead poisoning and lead’s presence in game into perspective. In the vast majority of cases, those admitted to hospital for treatment for the toxic effect of lead were male and in their late 20s and early 30s, which perhaps suggests that occupational hazards involving lead are the greatest risk factor in UK poisonings.

Investigations must take into account butchery and cookery methods involved in processing any game meat shot with lead ammunition. It is usual for wound channels to be removed when processing meat; I know many butchers who do that. Best practice may mitigate any risk and ensure that levels are consistent with those in conventional meats.

There are serious concerns that alternatives to lead ammunition, especially tungsten, could have serious implications for human health—and environmental health, for that matter, because this is an environmental issue—that have not been thoroughly explored or studied. It is important that the Lead Ammunition Group is given time to complete its study. Such studies must be completed before any widespread move is made to any alternative form of ammunition.

There is a real threat that the most recent leak to the media will subvert the work of the Lead Ammunition Group, which follows a clearly established process and is assessing the issues surrounding lead ammunition. I am hoping to prevent that from happening by showing both sides of the argument. We should rely on the scientific data and research that the group has collated as well as taking on board the views of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and many other bodies. It is clear from correspondence from all bodies that until the Lead Ammunition Group publishes its results and recommendations, the lead shot ban will be actively upheld and even promoted by everyone involved in shooting sports. It is essential that the LAG is given the respect and time that it needs to reach its conclusions, free from pressure from any side, and from media hype, which is extremely unhelpful. I, for one, look forward to receiving the report and until then, despite my own firm belief about the effects of lead shot, I will withhold judgement. I urge everyone to give the LAG the ability to carry out the job that it was created to do and to cease media hype and scares in the meantime.

Country sports are an essential part of our economy. Health and safety, too, are an essential consideration in any decision that is made.

In conclusion, country sports contribute £45 million to the Northern Ireland economy. Some 70,000 primary and secondary jobs across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland depend on sporting shooting. Every year, £2 billion is created in goods and services across the United Kingdom by sporting shooting. Some £6 billion is generated by shooting and country sports in the United Kingdom, including money from people who pay for shooting. We cannot underestimate the incredible contribution that country sports make to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Shooting also provides £250 million a year for conservation: the sport is committed to shooting, but it is also committed to conservation. It is my belief that we can and will find a way forward on the issue, where safety is paramount and country sports can thrive and remain a way of life.

Plastic Bags

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I will make a short speech and allow as much time as possible for interventions, as a number of hon. Members have expressed an interest in the debate. I am also glad that our new Farming Minister is here on behalf of his ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord de Mauley. I know that the Liberal Democrats have taken a positive stance on the issue of plastic bags.

The House will be aware of my early-day motion 534 with the catchy title of “Plastic Bags”. Essentially, it backs the Break the Bag Habit campaign, which involves a wide coalition of organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, the Marine Conservation Society, Surfers Against Sewage, and Greener upon Thames, which was born in my constituency. That coalition calls for the introduction of a charge on single-use carrier bags.

Before explaining why that is important, I want to stress that it would be a levy and not a tax. It would be collected locally and distributed to local causes, and because there is zero need to purchase a plastic bag, except in a few circumstances, the levy would also be easy to avoid. There is also no prospect of its becoming another green stealth tax, and the approach is broadly supported by the retailers. I have received a note from the British Retail Consortium, which has couched its support in cautious language. However, in August 2012, it also said that

“if England wishes to follow the approach of the other UK Governments to achieve greater reductions”

in carrier bag usage

“it will have to introduce legislation and a charge as there is a limit to what can be achieved on a voluntary basis.”

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has secured a debate on this incredibly important issue. Does he believe that the levy or, as some people like to describe it, the tax should be paid principally by the retailer demanding the bags and the advertising, or should it be passed on to the consumer? That, I think, is where this measure will stand or fall.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall come back to what the levy would look like in ideal circumstances. I will deal with his point, but I shall come on to it.

To step back for a second, I should say that we are an extraordinarily wasteful country. We generate enough waste every hour to fill the Albert hall right to the tip of its dome. Plastic bags do not constitute the majority of our waste, but of all the waste that we do generate, the plastic bag is surely the most idiotic.

Rural Communities

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this debate. We should celebrate the fact that this Parliament has been more rural centric in its attitude than previous Parliaments for a long period of time. Parliament is now starting to speak up for the countryside, which possibly reflects the fact that we are lobbied strongly by our countryside constituents who want a fair crack of the whip and that is something that should be encouraged. There needs to be a voice rising from the countryside for a vibrant, healthy agricultural industry, from the farmer, to the processer, to the consumer. That is what our countryside should be all about. We need policies that sustain our agricultural industry so that our living, breathing rural communities continue to contribute the most important thing—sustainable food produce.

My own constituency in Northern Ireland has an agricultural economy that employs some 20% of our workers. As the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) mentioned, we must move away from the public sector and towards a more balanced economy. That is happening; agricultural productivity is growing, which is positive, but it can only be sustained if this place starts to put in place some very strong policies to keep young people on our land; to encourage young farmers to stay in the industry; and to ensure that the key area increases in pillar two of the common agricultural policy should not be at the direct expense of pillar one, which supports agricultural productivity. Supporting agricultural productivity is the most important thing that can be achieved by EU and CAP policies. What the Westminster Government should be doing is putting money where it matters most to assist the farmer to produce sustainable, good, traceable food which is what our consumers want and need. That is the critical issue that out rural policies should be driving at.

However, this debate is more about rural communities and remoteness. I represent a constituency that also includes the inhabited island of Rathlin.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on bringing this matter forward. It is a really good issue and we are all supportive of it. My hon. Friend mentions the island of Rathlin and has also talked about agriculture. Sometimes a poor relation in rural communities is the fishing industry. Does he think that the fishing industry needs help from Government, and that the fishing villages initiative is one way of getting money to those communities? It is important to create jobs at this critical time.

[Ian Paisley]

Absolutely. When we talk about agricultural productivity, we must not forget our fishermen who produce a harvest from our seas and who must form part of this important debate.

Nothing could be more remote than living on an island, off an island, off an island, and that is what happens in my constituency. Those people on Rathlin know what remoteness really means. They have to travel by boat to get to their mainland in Ulster. It is critical that we address the needs of that community. When rural post offices close or a bank closes in Ballycastle or Bushmills, it has an even bigger impact on a place such as Rathlin. Whenever fuel costs go up, the knock-on effect in Rathlin is twice as big as it is on the mainland. Whenever we speak about rural communities, we must understand that there is level of remoteness that is doubly remote and we must take that on board whenever we address this issue.

Some hon. Members have mentioned broadband. Broadband does not operate appropriately in areas such as Rathlin island. A GP comes over once a week by boat to see his patients, and when he finds that the computer does not work, he cannot order the prescription from the mainland of Ulster. What happens next? Those people who are already remote feel the real sudden impact of living on that island, off an island, off an island. We must ensure that the issue of broadband is properly addressed for our rural communities because it makes a difference. It allows young entrepreneurs who live in remote areas to create businesses. It also enables our tourism industry to flourish and our community to be driven forward.

I leave one thought with the Minister: rural proofing should be a golden thread running through all policy. Whatever Department is involved, it must consider how a policy affects the people in the rural United Kingdom, because they matter most.