Managing Flood Risk

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was not aware that there was a time limit and will race through my final remarks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just to help the hon. Gentleman, there is a voluntary time limit of about 10 minutes.

[Richard Benyon]

I will be as quick as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton makes an important point. It is a matter of regret that we have not yet brought forward the sustainable drainage provisions, which were the subject of much discussion. I can assure her that I wish we had brought them forward sooner. When they are brought forward, they will make life much better. On the automatic right to connect, I am also on record as agreeing with her on many points.

My most important point today is that we should not look at England’s flood problems through the prism of one area’s hydrology—particularly that of the Somerset levels, which have a complex hydrology. Looking at the Somerset levels as one cohesive hydrological problem is a mistake: parts of them did not flood, or did not flood so badly this time, possibly because of actions that had been taken.

The most important thing we can do is listen to the experts. A very good report was published last week by the Chartered Institution for Water and Environmental Management. We do not use CIWEM enough; its 10,000 real experts are at the beck and call of the Government, the Opposition, companies and local authorities. They have produced a really important report. I brought it with me, but someone has nicked it. [Laughter.] That is what people get if they leave their papers in the House. The report is really good and I suggest that hon. Members read it if they have not done so already. It shows some of our difficulties in managing flood risk and the problems of dredging indiscriminately.

We all have experts in our constituencies. One of mine is Dick Greenaway, who was the surveyor for the Thames Conservancy but has now retired. He has fascinating knowledge of the history of flooding. After the 1947 floods, an enormous amount of dredging took place in the River Thames. A lot of the experts of the time said that it would not work and it was being done for political rather than proper hydrological reasons. The dredging was picking up bronze-age remains close to the surface of the river bed, showing that it had not changed for a long time. Dredging can cause more problems. Since we stopped dredging the Thames to any large degree, the base of the river has dropped because of the action of the river and the change in climate. We ignore people such as Dick Greenaway at our peril.

In conclusion, we should now turn our attention to land use. We have an enormous amount of work to do in joining up land use issues, common agricultural policy reform, the drainage activities of some landowners and land managers and our management of rivers in respect of the water framework directive or flood problems at a certain point or further downstream. Some of what I have seen around the country has been very damaging in terms of flood problems lower down. We have to address that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Parish, you have got away with it once. I am not going to let it go twice.

[Mr Stuart]

I would like to say a few words on how my constituency has been affected. It was devastated in the 2007 floods. The impact on homes and businesses was far greater than it has been in the current floods, but, as others have said, flooding is devastating for every home and business. About 1,100 homes and businesses were flooded by the tidal surge in December that affected people around the Humber estuary. Whatever the cause, flooding has a tremendously strong effect.

I would like to praise the work of internal drainage boards in my area. The south Holderness internal drainage board undertook work to dredge Hedon Haven. Dredging needs to be done in the appropriate way and in the appropriate place—I can imagine dredging having a detrimental effect in the valleys mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The incredibly flat area of Holderness is effectively a man-made ecosystem. It is hard to see improved dredging, which would allow very slow-moving water to get out, leading to anything other than an improvement. It will not stop one-in-200-year flooding events having a negative effect, but it will make them last slightly less long with a less wide impact. Dredging also appeals to local people, who like to feel that those bits of the system that drain water away are kept in a state of usefulness.

One point I would like to make to the Minister is that when the Keyingham internal drainage board in my constituency was looking to carry out dredging at Stone Creek and Hedon Haven, the new Marine Management Organisation decided to charge it for a licence. We spent years pulling all the pools and the political will together to get the sign off to allow us to dredge and let the water out, but what happened? This glorified new quango came along and sent in a suggested bill for thousands of pounds to grant a licence, even though the Environment Agency, when it had done similar work elsewhere, had not charged anything. The MMO decided that it had to do so much more work it ended up charging £10,000 for that one bit of dredging. Will the Minister please ensure that quangos do not inflict charges that stop local people doing what is necessary to make sure that things are more sensibly managed?

After 2007, there was a good response from people who had, up until that point, not performed as well as they should; whether that was Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency or the council. In our area, people did not know who owned the pumps, let alone whether they were responsible for keeping them going, but since 2007 they have worked together. In front of Willow Grove in Beverley, Yorkshire Water has done a great deal of work, and the local council then came in and worked closely with local residents. In 2007, a very beautiful row of houses was famously pictured all flooded. The picture went out around the world. A flood wall has now been erected in front of those homes, trees have been planted and the Westwood area has been restored. Local ownership really can work and we need to ensure we keep it that way.

We need to ensure that we have as broad an understanding as possible of catchments and their impact. That is why all the agencies involved—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) who is in his place, Members of the European Parliament, Hull city council, East Riding council—supported setting up the River Hull Advisory Board, which I chair. The Environment Agency and others have supported finding the funding to try to have better modelling of the River Hull catchment, so that we can ensure the effective protection of agricultural land—which deserves consideration—rural areas and the urban areas in Hull. The truth is that we are all in it together and we need to ensure that we have a coherent and cohesive approach that works. I pay tribute to all the agencies that have worked together on the River Hull Advisory Board. We really are taking forward a better understanding and a better policy for the future.

Rural Communities

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I am a little disturbed by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Given that so many members of the public from and residents of Macclesfield and Cheshire visit Anglesey, would it not be entirely appropriate for him to come to Macclesfield and enjoy the Cheshire Peak district rather than travel even further to the Yorkshire dales?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us not concentrate too much on which is the best holiday destination, because we know it is Lancashire and the Lake district.

[Albert Owen]

I would welcome people from Lancashire, the Lake district and other areas to debate that question in my constituency.

I am very proud of my constituency and that it is both rural and urban and that there is interdependency between both communities. When we talk about rural communities, we need to point out the interdependency between them and nearby large market towns, villages and larger conurbations. The new A55 means that Lancashire is very close to north Wales. We need that connectivity with other parts of the United Kingdom.

Many rightly say that people choose to live in a rural area, but the challenges mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton often lead to many people choosing to leave rural areas due to a lack of work opportunities and facilities. I say genuinely to the Minister that it is a challenge to us all and to all governments—local government, the Welsh Government and the UK Government—to work with the European Union and others to ensure that we get the balance right between industry and tourism. It is not a question of either/or—we can have both. Rural areas can have quality industrial jobs alongside farming and food production and tourism. That is the challenge for us all and I appreciate the way in which the hon. Lady and her Committee have shadowed the Department.

I am at a slight disadvantage because, although I have read the report, I have not read the Government’s response to it. I shall do so after this debate, because some of the issues raised by the hon. Lady are disturbing and I wish that the Government would look more positively at some of the recommendations. We need to get the balance right.

Depopulation is one of the big issues. When an area loses many people, capital grants are reduced and that makes it even more difficult to sustain and regenerate local communities. In the 1980s and 1990s, our county—which is coterminous with my constituency—was the only one to lose population during the two census periods from 1981 to 2001. We lost a lot of talent and a lot of families who had been there for many years. Economic decline is an issue in rural and periphery areas. We have the double whammy of being on the periphery, which has made it very difficult for people to travel to visit in the past. I am pleased with the great improvement in road and rail infrastructure, but a lot more needs to be done to help areas on the periphery such as north-west Wales and Anglesey.

I want to concentrate on an issue that the hon. Lady and her Committee have not addressed on this occasion: energy. I also want to discuss tourism, farming and food and infrastructure, but energy is rightly a dominant issue for debate. As a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, I have raised many of these issues for some time.

My area—the facts and statistics bear this out—is a net producer of energy and a net generator of electricity. Wales as a country is a net producer of energy and a net generator of electricity, but it is also a huge, main hub for imported gas. Areas of west and north-west Wales, Pembrokeshire and various other areas actually supply a lot of the United Kingdom with its energy, electricity and liquefied petroleum gas imports, and yet we pay some of the highest electricity prices in the country, which is hugely unfair. Much of that—I raised this issue during business questions and have raised it for many years—is due to the energy market’s failure to provide a level playing field for the distribution and transmission of electricity, particularly to rural areas. We produce the bulk of the energy, yet we have to pay more for it. I hope the Government will look seriously at that issue.

We have highlighted the problems with power outage in rural areas, some of which are blighted by power transmission lines running through their communities. The figures clearly show that households and businesses in north-west and south Wales are paying higher prices for their energy. I stress that businesses are paying more as well. As Members throughout the House will know, energy costs are one of the biggest factors for businesses. Their margins are squeezed in very difficult and austere times and, on top of that, high energy costs are having a huge negative impact on rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I just say that nine hon. Members are due to speak? I will not impose a time limit, but they should bear in mind how long they take.

Water Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—National affordability scheme—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, by order, introduce a National Affordability Scheme for water.

(2) The National Affordability Scheme must include an eligibility criteria, determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with—

(a) the Water Services Regulation Authority; and

(b) the Consumer Council for Water.

(3) An order under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

New clause 8—Billing information: affordability—

‘Any company providing water services to a residential household must include on its bills—

(a) details of any tariffs provided by that company;

(b) a recommendation of the lowest possible tariff for each residential household; and

(c) information regarding eligibility criteria and how to make an application for assistance under Water Sure.’.

New clause 9—Provision of information to water companies: landlords—

‘(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 207 (Provision of false information) there is inserted—

“Provision of information to water companies: landlords

Where a water company does not have information about a resident in a property that is using water, if the occupants of that property are tenants, the landlord must, on request, provide to the water company contact details for the tenants.”.’.

New clause 10—Water companies: recovery of losses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State, or the Authority, may prohibit losses to a water company due to non-payment of bills from being recovered through charges on customers.

(2) This section comes into force on the day after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report setting out how water companies have failed to take action on these matters,’,

Amendment 9, in clause 80, page 124, line 1, at end insert—

‘(e) section [Provision of benefits information].’.

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to consider new clause 3 and amendment 9, which seek to address legislation already on the statute books in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I remind the House that the cost of bad debt to each household in England is approximately £15 per annum, and in times of great hardship and a period of austerity, which the Government are dealing with through the actions we continue to take, it is incumbent on the Government to consider every opportunity to defray the costs to each household in that regard.

New clause 3 seeks to provide benefits information by allowing the Secretary of State to regulate to

“make provision about the disclosure of benefits information about occupiers”

to water and sewerage companies in connection with the revised part of the Water Industry Act 1991. It goes on to state that

“‘benefits information’ means information which is held for benefit entitlement purposes by the Department for Work and Pensions.”

Amendment 9 would make the consequential change to the current clause 80, to allow the provision of benefits information. I sat where the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is currently sitting and followed the passage of the Flood and Water Management Bill as closely as he is following the passage of this Bill. I have been very taken with the idea of trying to reduce bad debt in this way. Recently, I was most fortunate to receive a written answer from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who helpfully told me that at present the legislation does not permit the transfer and provision of benefits information by the Department for Work and Pensions in the way I wish. He did not say it could not be done; he said only that the current law does not permit it. We are where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5 —Abstraction reform—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision to introduce a reformed abstraction regime.

(2) An abstraction regime under subsection (1) must—

(a) be resilient to the challenges of climate change;

(b) be resilient to the challenges of population growth; and

(c) better protect the environment.

(3) An abstraction regime must be introduced no later than the end of the period of seven years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

New clause 6—Onshore oil or gas activities—effect on water environment—

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 there shall be inserted after paragraph 13 the following—

“Onshore oil or gas activities—effect on water environment

13A (1) Without prejudice to the operation of Regulation 35(2) and paragraph 5(1)(d) of Schedule 10 and of Regulation 35(2) and paragraph 7(j) of Schedule 20, the regulator shall refuse an application for the grant or variation of an environmental permit or for the transfer in whole or in part of an environmental permit if—

(a) the regulated facility to which the application for or transfer of the environmental permit relates is to be carried on as part of an onshore oil or gas activity; and

(b) the regulator is not satisfied that the applicant or the proposed transferee has made or will make adequate financial provision for preventing or mitigating pollution of the water environment, by ensuring all of the following—

(i) operation of the regulated facility in accordance with the environmental permit;

(ii) compliance with any enforcement notice or suspension notice or prohibition notice or mining waste facility closure notice or landfill closure notice which may be served on the applicant or transferee by the regulator under these Regulations;

(iii) compliance with any order of the High Court which may be obtained against the applicant or transferee under Regulation 42 for the purpose of securing compliance with any of the notices listed in sub-paragraph (ii).

(iv) compliance with any order of any court issued under Regulation 44 against the applicant or transferee; and

(v) recovery by the regulator of its costs upon any exercise of its power against the applicant or transferee under Regulation 57;

(c) for the purpose of this paragraph ‘onshore oil or gas activity’ means any activity for the purpose of exploration for or extraction of onshore oil and gas;

(d) for the purpose of this paragraph ‘adequate provision by way of financial security’ means financial provision which is sufficient in value, secure and available when required.”.’.

New clause 13—Unlawful communications—

‘(1) Section 109 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (sewerage: unlawful communication with public sewer) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (1)(b).

(3) In subsection (2)(a) after “close”, insert “or redirect”.

(4) In subsection (2)(b) omit “from the offender”.

(5) At the end add—

“(4) The expenses are recoverable from—

(a) the offender; or

(b) the owner of the drain or sewer.

(5) A person who obstructs a sewerage undertaker in exercising a power under subsection (2)(a)—

(a) commits an offence; and

(b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”.’.

Amendment 2, in clause 21, page 62, line 19, after ‘undertakers’, insert ‘and highway authorities’.

Amendment 3, page 62, line 22, after ‘undertaker’, insert ‘or a highway authority’.

Amendment 1, page 62, line 23, at end insert—

‘(2A) Highways authorities must include in schemes for the construction of new roads, drainage systems with a specification designed to decrease the risk of flooding of public sewerage systems.’.

Government amendments 55 to 57.

Amendment 5, clause 51, page 107, line 5, after ‘premises’, insert ‘and small businesses’.

Amendment 6, page 107, line 7, after ‘premises’, insert ‘and small businesses’.

Amendment 8, clause 53, page 107, line 37, after ‘made’, insert

‘which shall include the occurrence of a 1 in 200 year loss scenario’.

Government amendment 58.

Amendment 7, clause 69, page 119, line 37, at end insert ‘“small businesses”.’.

Amendment 10, clause 80, page 124, line 1, at end insert—

‘(f) section [Sustainable drainage and automatic right to connect].’.

Amendment 11, page 124, line 1, at end insert—

‘(g) section [Abstraction reform].’.

[Miss McIntosh]

I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but this is the first occasion that I can remember when there has not been a parliamentary week between the completion of the business of the Public Bill Committee and consideration on Report and Third Reading. I should therefore like to pass on my thanks not only to the Committee staff who have accommodated our being able to table amendments in a timely fashion, but to all those involved in the House service who have enabled us to have amendments before us to debate this evening.

I shall go through the new clauses and amendments first and then give the reasons for them. I, along with a number of members of the EFRA Committee, have thought it fit to assist the Government yet again, and I hope that we have more success with this round. Anyone who knows me even remotely will know that I am becoming a compulsive obsessive on sustainable draining systems and that I will never pass over an opportunity to discuss SUDS. So, under new clause 4, we seek to introduce the sustainable draining system, which is woefully late. It was already given statutory powers under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and in new clause 4 I link that to the end of the automatic right to connect.

I should like to pay tribute to a great Yorkshireman, Sir Michael Pitt, who after the surface water flooding of 2007 attempted to get on to the statute book under the 2010 Act—the then Government’s legislation—the end of the automatic right to connect. I would go further with substantial developments than I have had the opportunity to do here. I should personally like Yorkshire Water and other water companies, as well as drainage boards, to be given the right to be statutory consultees on major new developments on the same basis as that enjoyed by the Environment Agency following the 2010 Act.

[Miss McIntosh]

As a non-practising Scottish advocate, I would always say that the Scottish legal system has a great deal to commend it, but Scotland needs to remain part of the United Kingdom to allow us to benefit from that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is for another day.

[Miss McIntosh]

Indeed, that is a different argument.

I shall give our reasons for new clause 4 in a moment. Abstraction reform forms the basis of new clause 5, in which we would return to what was in the White Paper, where the Government waxed lyrical on abstraction regimes. We particularly call for the abstraction regime to be introduced no later than the end of the period of seven years beginning on the date on which the Bill is passed and comes into legal effect.

Amendments 2 and 3 would insert into clause 21 the relevant language of “undertakers” and “highways authorities”. I am attracted to amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), and look forward to his speaking to it in due course. Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 would include small businesses in the flood reinsurance scheme, for reasons that I shall give in a moment.

Fishing Industry

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman said that we needed to establish whether the fishing of endangered stock was targeted or non-targeted. I know that during the autumn at least one boat contained 400 boxes, and I am sure that all the other boats have done the same. That should serve as a guide to civil servants and scientists who are formulating some sort of policy.

The one thing that fishermen do not want to do is go on a fishing trip and load their boats with fish that have zero value. They do not want to steam out, fill their boxes with fish that they did not intend to catch, do not want and cannot sell, and then have to steam back and land them on a pier. That is the worst of all worlds for a fisherman.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need short interventions. There is a danger of Members’ trying to make speeches by means of interventions, which worries me. Six more Back Benchers and two Front Benchers have yet to speak. I do not want to have to impose a time limit, but it is looking likely.

[Andrew George]

I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could, of course, extend the debate to the relative merits of quota and area management, but I will simply say that, in my view, area and seasonal management and a more effective use of closed areas are a better way of controlling and protecting fish stocks than quotas.

Let me end by making a couple of brief points. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that in Cornwall we have drawn attention to the potential risks to our crab fishery, particularly in the over-15 metre sector. One of the problems of the way in which the industry is managed is that requests for significant cuts in the catch are often given at very short notice. Much more planning is needed if we are to avoid shocks of that kind.

I also want to raise the issue of the six and 12-mile limits. I know that my hon. Friend has a reputation, indeed a pedigree, for being strongly anti-European, and I hope that I can draw something out of his anti-European-ness. I am talking about simply batting for Britain. Let us all join forces, and agree that whether we are engaging with Europe positively and constructively or negatively, what we want is the best deal for Britain. It is clear that most of the foreign boats that are taking advantage of access within the 12-mile zone and up to the six-mile zone are new, and were not around at the time of their historic entitlement. I urge my hon. Friend to scrutinise the impact that they are having very close to our coasts. I also ask him to think about the point that we have reached in the negotiations on the setting of marine conservation zones, which lie both within and outside the six to 12-mile zone. We need to ensure that we apply the same rules to both foreign and British vessels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Unfortunately, I am going to have to put an eight-minute limit on speeches. I do not want to have to bring it down further, but a lot of the time has been taken by others.

Common Agricultural Policy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Paice]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I too apologise for forgetting to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Is there anybody else while we are on the record? If not, I call Roger Williams.

[Roger Williams]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that my contribution has caused so much interest in the Chamber.

The shadow Minister was rather fierce in his criticism of the Minister. Only yesterday, a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came to the House to make a statement on the common fisheries policy. That was always seen to be intractable, yet the outcome seemed to have the support of the whole Chamber. Indeed, we hope that the CAP negotiations will meet with the same success.

It has been said that little progress has been made in reforming the CAP—the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), who is no longer in his place, said so at the beginning of the debate—but I must remind everybody that 25 years ago CAP expenditure amounted to 75% of EU funding, whereas it now amounts to just over 40%. In that time, the amount spent by the average UK family on food has decreased from 25% of disposable income to about 15%, although sadly that trend is moving in the opposite direction because of the increases in commodity prices. Back in the 1980s, the CAP depended on market support and intervention through export subsidies and import tariffs, which were really trade-distorting implements and very unfair on developing countries. Things moved on, however, and in 1993 the MacSharry proposals introduced direct payments that were not so trade distorting, and in 2003, the Fischler proposals decoupled support, which was another step forward.

Why do we still need a CAP? It was first introduced to ensure that people working in agriculture and the countryside had incomes comparable to those in more urban and industrial occupations. Sadly, it has been unsuccessful in doing that, and incomes in the countryside are still less than in towns. Many farming businesses in this country would be making no profit at all, if it were not for direct payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are four speakers and 16 minutes left.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I suggest each speaker takes around 10 minutes?

Badger Cull

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a six-minute limit on speeches—[Interruption.] It is not a shame; we just want to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need enticement from the Front Bench. The Secretary of State does not need to get angry, as he will be coming back later, no doubt. Mr Wiggin, we do not need any extra help from you.

[Nia Griffith]

The European Commission has set out an indicative 10-year timetable for the cattle BCG vaccine and DIVA test to be available for use, but as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said, the timetable is precisely that: indicative. I ask the Government to put every effort into further research into the steps necessary to make the vaccine and the test both effective and usable in the international context. That is the way to make sure the farmer is in control, which is the real way to deal with the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will have to drop the time limit on speeches to five minutes. [Interruption.] It is no use tutting. It is either that or I will have to knock someone off the list. With fewer interventions everyone might just have a chance to speak, so it is up to everybody to show some self-restraint.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The Opposition have called Members to the House for this debate, and the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Front-Bench team have proposed the motion:

“That this House believes the badger cull should not go ahead.”

This is the biggest animal health crisis is Britain and it is costing £1 billion, with 28,000 cattle slaughtered last year—and the Opposition have no policy, no alternative. Do they have a feasible alternative that they would like to put forward?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have suggested short interventions, and if Members want to pass judgment on others, it would be better if they had been here at the beginning.

[Chris Williamson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place and listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, he would have heard her set out the alternatives. There are alternatives, and that is the point that we are making. The Government are taking the wrong course of action. It is not just me saying that as a trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports; this is the scientific evidence. Let me quote some of the scientific evidence for the record.

Lord Krebs, who chaired a review team that originated the idea of the RBCT, said on 12 October 2012 on the “Today” programme:

“The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. I have not found any scientists who are experts in population biology or the distribution of infectious disease in wildlife who think that culling is a good idea. People seem to have cherry-picked certain results to try and get the argument they want.”

Lord Robert May, a former Government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society, said:

“It’s very clear to me that the government’s policy does not make sense.”

He added:

“I have no sympathy with the decision. They are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”

The recently retired Government chief scientist, Professor Sir John Beddington, has also refused to back the cull.

A letter published in The Observer on 14 October 2012 and signed by more than 30 scientists, including Professor John Bourne, former chairman of the ISG, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, president of the Zoological Society of London, Professor Sir John Lawton, former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, Dr Chris Cheeseman, formerly of the Food and Environment Research Agency, Professor Denis Mollison, former independent scientific auditor to the RBCT, and Professor Richard Kock of the Royal Veterinary College, states:

“the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it”.

The letter ends:

“culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication.”

The Government are taking the wrong course of action. Government Members have spoken as though they were somehow the friends of the farmer, but they will make matters worse and cause incredible suffering to the badger population. They are enraging the vast majority of the British public and they are wasting police money. They have cut the police service to the bone and yet they want the police to waste resources policing the culls—estimated at about £2 million per cull. This is absolutely bonkers. It is criminal and it should stop.

I urge the Secretary of State, having heard the cogent argument put forward by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, to pause for a moment, to think what he is doing, to consider her words, to consider the scientific evidence, to think again and to take a different course of action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking with great knowledge. He mentioned the importance of cattle movement control. Does he accept that the shift of bovine TB to remote areas is a result of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to Members speaking whether they give way or not, but those intervening, from whatever side of the House, should show self-restraint and make their interventions short. I call Neil Parish, who I presume has nearly ended.

[Neil Parish]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take any more interventions. I think that the hon. Lady was asking whether cattle spread disease to areas that were uninfected. Yes, they did to a degree. We have to tackle the disease in the hot-spot areas—where we have to cull—to make sure that cattle are not infected and that there is no chance of their being moved. We have to use every weapon available.

The key thing is what happened in the Republic of Ireland. While the number of cases of TB in Northern Ireland doubled, the number in the Republic halved over the same period. What did the Irish do? They culled their badgers. We have to be sure that we do all the relevant things.

Many of us are countrymen and countrywomen who would love to have the badger around. However, we want them to be healthy. We cannot leave diseased badgers in the field, to infect cattle and each other. Once we have reduced the number of badgers in those red-hot areas of TB, we will see a much healthier badger population. I also believe that we will not see as many badgers trying to mix with the cattle; there will not be the pressure on feed, which is paramount. We are not talking about a national cull of badgers. Our aim is not to exterminate badgers, but to cure cattle and badgers of TB and make sure that we have healthy food and livestock for our future.

The farming community feels despair because of the years of inaction from the previous Government. The community is not divided as the shadow Secretary of State tried to claim earlier; it is very much united by the fact that the disease has to be eradicated. That can be done by using all the methods, including a cull.

Finally, I go back to the Republic of Ireland, where statistics show that herds are half as likely to be reinfected with TB in areas where badgers have been culled. The beauty of the system there is that it involves badgers to cattle and cattle to badgers. Farming practices in the Republic are very much the same as those in Northern Ireland, which shows that a controlled cull of infected badgers will work. The farming community is behind the cull and I believe that, when it is explained, the public will also understand that the issue is about disease control and healthy cattle and wildlife.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

We must remember that there is a strong international perspective to this issue. ActionAid and Traidcraft have been active and strong supporters of not only the Bill, but its strengthening in this regard. They were seeking a resolution to ensure that retailers trade fairly with overseas producers well before the code was envisaged or indeed delivered. UK supermarkets buy a significant volume of their products from overseas and produce a considerable —[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr George, I am sure that you are not listening to a message while you are in the Chamber. I hope that we do not see a repeat and that your phone is completely switched off.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We know the origins of the code came from the Competition Commission report in 2008; we have already discussed the excessive risks to suppliers, particularly overseas ones. The practices behind that would have had the potential to harm those producers overseas who are the most vulnerable and to be an obstacle to progress on the pay and conditions of, and innovation by, farmers and farm workers in developing countries. UK shoppers rightly enjoy the widest range of choice, via large retailers. The outstanding quality of produce cannot be in doubt, but the Bill has the opportunity to ensure that there is protection for all territories and to make a large contribution to the development of other countries. Amendment 30 asks for the code to be extended to other territories and asks the adjudicator to look at this matter when making recommendations to the OFT.

The subsidiaries issue is also worth exploring, as it shows clearly that the large retailers have different arrangements in place. That has to be taken into account, which is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It would be good to get clarity from the Minister on what the process would be if difficulties were identified with regard to the code in these subsidiaries or other territories. The relationship of the code in the complex matrix of buying and production is from the large retailer to the immediate supplier. As the Bill stands, that means that the large retailer is able to set up subsidiaries to buy apples from X Ltd rather than directly from the supplier.

Amendment 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and it goes to the heart of some of the main issues that have been discussed in the House over the past few months. Our amendment calls on the Government to ensure that the GSCOP, which the adjudicator referees, covers the issue of commercial pressures that can be put on suppliers and that drive down quality and safety, creating possible food scandals, such as the recent revelations around horsemeat in beef products.

The amendment would explicitly enable the adjudicator to include in its annual report details of any incidents where it had become aware that commercial pressure had been applied to suppliers to drive down costs, standards and health and safety, resulting in a drop in food standards or authenticity. To answer some of the criticisms that will probably come from the hon. Member for Shipley and his like, I should say that the amendment is directly related to clause 14 and the annual report to the OFT, not necessarily in the sense of the issues arising where someone takes a case to the adjudicator to deal with in terms of the code.

Amendment 35 would require the adjudicator to send its annual report to the Food Standards Agency. That would create an important link between the adjudicator and the FSA in terms of some of the issues related to the horsemeat scandal that we have seen in recent weeks. As has been reported, the UK’s National Beef Association has blamed what it called the “bullying culture” that retail buyers have used for decades for the presence of horsemeat in beef products. Its national director, Chris Mallon, has said the public and retailers were paying the price for

“short-sighted, price-led purchasing tactics”.

He said that buyers had

“adopted a bullying culture aimed exclusively at securing as much farm food as possible, for as little cost as possible, and the result is tortured supply chains that add so much unnecessary cost that short cuts on quality and traceability, and even cheating by some suppliers, was inevitable.”

That quote shows how important it might be to include the amendment in the Bill.

Consumers must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe, but over recent weeks that confidence has been hit hard. Many of the problems in this particular scandal have been outright criminal, and, of course, the criminal courts will deal with those, but Ministers have been slow to act, as has been shown in our debates in this House. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has been ahead of the UK every step of the way. By having an annual reporting requirement on food safety and hygiene through the adjudicator, some of the issues that have been raised eloquently by the national director of the UK NBA could be dealt with.

The amendment has another link with the Food Standards Agency, as its budget has been cut from £143 million to £132 million. Although we should not get into a debate today about budgets of particular Government agencies or Departments, it would be an important step to say that the adjudicator, in its report to the OFT, could refer some of these cases. That might help to soften the blow caused by the reduction in resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that we do not want to continue this debate and that the hon. Gentleman is desperate to get back to the subject of the amendment.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Absolutely. I make the point to illustrate how important this amendment is in terms of food safety and provenance. I just want to correct the record. The Minister said that it was one in 20,000, but it is roughly one in 2,000. I repeat to the Minister that the advice given directly to the Government was that there is a possibility of adverse effects—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Do not test my patience any more. We can both agree that you are desperate to speak to the amendment and now you are going to go back to it. We do not want to have to bring someone else in just yet, do we?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am happy that I have made the case extensively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend anticipates the argument that I am going to put. I was in discussion about whether an amendment referring only to “outside the United Kingdom” would be in order and selectable. On advice—obviously, I am responsible for deciding whether to act on advice—I decided that my new clause was much more likely to be selected if, instead of referring to the United Kingdom, I referred to the European Union. That is because of single market and European Union rules. Obviously, I wanted to ensure as far as possible that my new clause would be selectable, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is saying that the whole public debate is about why cannot we buy British—buy UK food and thereby avoid the risk associated—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I gently remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries —[Interruption.] Order. A Member is speaking, and unfortunately every time a PPS walks past, it is at eye-level of the camera. The first time it is not too bad, but it is happening constantly. We all want to hear Mr Chope, and I am sure the PPSs would like to hear a little more from him.

[Mr Chope]

The only comfort that I take is that my remarks are evidently creating such confusion on the Front Bench that Ministers need an enormous number of messages sent to them from the Box. I take some consolation from that.

It is incumbent upon the Minister when she replies to explain how the Bill will help UK producers while not giving benefits and privileges to producers from the rest of the European Union, let alone from outside the European Union. I should like to give the Minister the maximum amount of time to respond to the debate.

Amendment 27 seemed to be warmly endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not understand why the Opposition did not table such an amendment themselves in Committee or on Report. The amendment proposes that the Bill come into force two months after Royal Assent. Then it would be clear on the face of the Bill when it would come into force. If this is such fantastic legislation, why do we not bring it in in the normal way—the whole Bill, two months after Royal Assent? I hope the Minister will respond to those points and particularly to the powerful argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in relation to new clause 2.

Horsemeat

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just mention to Members who want to catch my eye that we are introducing an eight-minute limit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I shall have to lower the speaking limit to seven minutes in order to enable everyone to speak. Members will keep intervening!

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

(Tiverton and Honiton) rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say to Mr Parish that he has five minutes, as we have to start the wind ups at 20 minutes to 4?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman reappearing in the Chamber, but I am grateful to the Minister of State for that clarification. I know that the Secretary of State has a busy schedule—he told us so. He said that he was meeting again today with the food industry, his second such meeting in four days. I thought that might be the meeting that took him away from the Chamber, and I would have congratulated him, but I realised that today’s meeting was not convened at short notice, or even as a response to the horsemeat scandal; it was convened last October to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to talk about waste and genetically modified food. It is good to see that, at least when it comes to his diary, the right hon. Gentleman has no problem with changing the label.

It is vital that we as consumers have full confidence that what we are eating is exactly what is stated on the packet and that Ministers are fighting our corner, but consumers watching the Secretary of State’s performance today and his statement yesterday will not have been encouraged. Many questions remain unanswered, so I hope that the Minister of State will answer them in his response. Some of them were asked yesterday but were left unanswered or were ignored by the right hon. Gentleman, who felt unable to answer them even today.

The Secretary of State told the House yesterday that he first became aware of the horsemeat problem on 15 January. Early in his statement, he said:

“On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 608.]

Will the Minister of State clarify whether that communication on 15 January was the first time the FSA was aware that such tests were taking place? Was the FSA contacted by the Irish authorities at any time between mid-November and 15 January to alert the FSA to the fact that concerns about the adulteration of beef had sparked an analysis? If so, when was that first contact made? Were Ministers told at the outset? If not, why not?

I did not pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) at the start of my speech because I wanted to make special mention of her terrific speech, which the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North described as an excellent advert for vegetarianism. I tried vegetarianism once, but gave up after about a month because I really cannot stand mushrooms. After the statement yesterday, my hon. Friend asked a sensible question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North repeated today, about an EU regulation that would limit to 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up mincemeat. She asked about reports that the Government are seeking a derogation from that regulation. The Secretary of State dismissed her in an extremely curt and arrogant manner, which I am sure he, being a gentleman, now regrets. Will the Minister of State now answer that question? Are the Government seeking to exempt the UK from a measure that is aimed specifically at protecting the rights of consumers?

I know the Minister of State, who will respond to the debate, takes a keen interest in the Food Standards Agency. I know that because he told the “Food Programme” on Sunday not once, but twice, “I can only go on the information given to me by the Food Standards Agency.” Fine. Good. So will he now accept the advice of the chief executive of the FSA, who has said that retailers

“need to test significantly across the product range, across wider meat-based product ranges”?

She was talking about chicken and pork products. Will the Minister, who prides himself on listening to the advice of the FSA, heed her advice? Do the Government have a view on this at all? [Interruption.] The Minister will get his chance to respond. He does love to chunter from a sedentary position. I spent two years on the Science and Technology Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and he was a veritable ray of sunshine during those many overseas visits. He was great company and I have to say that he seems to have gone into an awful bad mood since he went on to the Government Front Bench. I am sure that after the next election—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure we want to get back on to the subject of horsemeat. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Minister has been eating it?

[Mr Harris]

I am getting back in the saddle right now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Minister of State warned Members a few weeks ago that we should not talk down the British food industry, and he is right, but given the huge number of jobs that the industry supports and its importance to our economy does he recognise that the industry can be undermined by other factors? Does he accept that ministerial inaction and indecisiveness can be far more damaging to the industry?

In mid-November Irish authorities were concerned enough about contamination of meat products—sorry, adulteration of meat products—some of which were headed to the United Kingdom, that they initiated tests without, according to UK Ministers, informing the UK Government of their initial concerns. Four weeks ago Irish authorities alerted the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers stocked in a number of UK supermarkets. Last Monday it was revealed that pies and pasties labelled as halal and served in UK prisons had tested positive for pig DNA. Last Thursday, reports emerged that the scandal had spread from frozen burgers to frozen ready meals.

Cue a sudden blur of belated action from the Secretary of State. On Saturday, he finally got round to meeting the British food industry to discuss the growing crisis. His food Minister had a least got round to meeting the industry before, once, one week previously. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said yesterday, “Crisis, what crisis?” At last, yesterday, the Secretary of State deigned to come to the House to berate Opposition Members for having the audacity to question him about this mess. As with the ash dieback issue, he has taken a very laid-back and relaxed approach to the issue—an attitude that, I have to tell him, is not shared by British consumers and their families.

When sales fall, when confidence in our food industry plummets, no doubt Ministers will reach for the nearest microphone to decry “scare mongering” by Opposition politicians. Who knows? Perhaps an unfortunate young relation of the Secretary of State will be encouraged to eat a Findus lasagne live on telly! But it will not be those on the Opposition Benches who are responsible for the collapse in trust. Consumers, yes, and voters well know where the blame lies.

A number of Members have highlighted the lack of an active criminal investigation. When pressed on this yesterday by my colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State said that

“she went on and on about the police”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 613.]

Really? Does the Secretary of State really think that such a patronising and condescending manner is the way to win support in the House on such an issue? May I suggest to the Secretary of State and to his deputy that a bit of humility would not go amiss? I say this as a non-practitioner myself, but I hear it works wonders. Even if ministerial action had so far been above criticism, such a manner would be inappropriate, and Ministers’ actions so far have been far from being above criticism.

The shadow Secretary of State was right to go on about the police. The Secretary of State himself has repeatedly stated that the adulteration is a result of “an international criminal conspiracy” and “a straight fraud”. In line with this, the Irish Government confirmed on Monday 4 February that the Garda and fraud specialists had been called in to investigate.

The shadow Secretary of State passed the details of more British companies alleged to be involved in the scandal to the Serious Organised Crime Agency last Friday and to the FSA on Saturday. On the same Friday, the FSA revealed that the police were involved, but that no live criminal investigation was active. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that until there was criminal action in this country, the police could not take action. Is that really the case? Will he confirm that he thinks criminals are present everywhere in Europe except the United Kingdom?

I delayed reference to the first-class and powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I want to echo some of her comments. I hope we will not use this debate and crisis as an excuse to tax supermarkets, which, despite their drawbacks, have made affordable, quality food available to ordinary families throughout the country. However, with massive retail power comes huge responsibility—to make sure that the items sold are precisely as described as on the labels. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State echo that sentiment.

We all see the value of sourcing products locally. Many Members have understandably used this debate to promote local produce, but that is far too complacent—ignoring the realities of economic and time pressures on modern families, simply to advise consumers to buy the ingredients of lasagne in their corner shops rather than a ready meal at Asda or Tesco. It is also too easy for the Secretary of State to dismiss his responsibilities by saying repeatedly that retailers have ultimate responsibility for the content of food. Unless he wants the “F” removed from DEFRA, it is incumbent on him to carry out the responsibilities he already has.

I know that the Secretary of State believes in a laissez-faire form of government—he thinks that the Government should not get involved in the running of people’s lives. He seems to have taken that a step further, seeming to believe that the Government should not get involved in the running of the Government. The FSA is independent, but that does not prevent the Secretary of State’s from asking it what kind of testing it plans to carry out.

I shall wind up now, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are two types of Government: the one whose Ministers are so confident, competent and on top of their briefs that from the Opposition Benches government looks easy. Then there is the other type—the Government whose members never seem well briefed or surefooted, but always seem to be behind the curve, making the wrong decisions too late. Such a Government leave the Opposition with the distinct impression that almost anyone else could do a better job. There is no doubt about which category this Government fall into.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. Four weeks ago, the Irish authorities alerted the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers stocked by UK supermarkets, including Tesco, Iceland and Lidl. Last Monday, we discovered that meat labelled as halal and served in UK prisons had tested positive for pig DNA. On Thursday, the scandal spread from frozen burgers to frozen ready meals, as we discovered that Findus beef lasagne contained up to 100% horsemeat. On Friday, this incompetent Secretary of State and his food Minister went home—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Everybody wants to make their contribution, and the only way they will is by being a little quieter. People may not like what is being said, but they should at least have the courtesy to listen.

[Mary Creagh]

On Friday, No. 10 told the press that the Secretary of State was working hard at his desk, getting a grip on this crisis. But in fact he had to be called back to London from his long weekend—crisis, what crisis? Until Saturday’s panic summit, he had not actually met the food industry to address this crisis. The food Minister had met with the food industry just once, exactly a week ago.

On Friday, I received information that three British companies were involved, potentially, in importing beef that actually contained horse. I wrote to the Secretary of State, offering to share the information with him. I also handed it to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. On Friday, the FSA said that the police were involved, so I was reassured. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA, but that there was no live criminal investigation. On Saturday, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Why not? If the Government want the food industry to test on the basis of risk, why did the Secretary of State not share the names of those companies at Saturday’s meeting?

On Thursday, DEFRA announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. Does the Secretary of State seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results? Can he confirm that that will be the first survey of product content that his Department has carried out since his Government removed compositional labelling from the Food Standards Agency in 2010? He talks about the FSA’s operational independence, but it is not responsible for the content of our food—he is. When will he stop hiding behind civil servants and take some responsibility? Does he think that surveying just 224 products from across the country matches the scale of this scandal, when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? Can he confirm today to the House that not all of those thousands of tests will be completed by Friday?

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many lines the members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? In his letter to me last Friday, he stated that some members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn products as a precaution. Can he tell the House which members have withdrawn which products, and whether any of them supplies schools, prisons and hospitals? The supermarkets have acted with speed and a degree of transparency on this that puts him to shame. I am disappointed that the hospitality industry and caterers have not been as candid.

In his letter to me, the Secretary of State said that the FSA is taking up individual suspicious incidents with authorities and the police across Europe. He said in the media this weekend that there is an international criminal conspiracy at work. Does he think that international criminals are present everywhere in Europe apart from in the United Kingdom? The French Government estimate that the Findus fraud alone has netted criminals €300,000. This is clearly big criminal business. Why have the UK police not investigated on the basis of the intelligence supplied? Has he had the full results of the tests carried out by the Irish authorities?

At Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions nearly three weeks ago, I asked the food Minister about horses contaminated with bute slaughtered in the UK and entering the human food chain. It has now been confirmed that of the nine UK horses that tested positive for bute, one was stopped, five went to France, two to the Netherlands and one to the UK. However, when council officials approached the people who had supposedly taken the horse to eat it, they had no knowledge of what had happened to it.

There has been talk of an EU import ban, but has the Secretary of State considered the possibility that horses are going to UK and Irish abattoirs and entering the food chain in the UK? Which horse abattoirs in the UK are on the FSA’s cause for concern list? Have any horses presented for slaughter in the past month been rejected by officials because of concerns over their passports? If so, where and how many?

The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has clear evidence of illegal trade in unfit horse from Ireland to the UK for meat, with horses being re-passported to meet demand for horsemeat in mainland Europe. It says that there are currently 70,000 horses unaccounted for in Northern Ireland. Unwanted horses are being sold for €10 and sold on for meat for €500—a lucrative trade. It is convenient to blame the Poles and Romanians, but so far neither country has found any problems with its beef abattoirs.

When will the Secretary of State get his story straight on bute? This horse medicine is banned from the food chain for a reason. On Friday, he said:

“I would have no hesitation at all in eating these products.”

Yet on Sunday he said that this food could be injurious to human health. The Health Secretary said it is just a labelling issue. Is this not symptomatic of the Government’s dangerous complacency?

I note the chief medical officer’s advice to people this morning. What levels of bute have to be present in the meat for it to be a human health risk? Will the Secretary of State tell us what the safe limits of bute consumption for human beings are, given that it is banned from the human food chain? The British public must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe. When Ministers came to the Commons to answer my urgent question on 17 January, the food Minister said:

“It is important that neither the hon. Lady nor anyone else in this House talks down the British food industry.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 1027.]

These invisible regulatory services protect our consumers and our food industry, and allow it to export all over the world. [Interruption.] I think Government Members would do well to listen as this issue is of interest to their constituents and the lack of information from their Government has been nothing short of a disgrace.

This weekend consumer confidence in British food was sinking like a stone. Food is a £12 billion industry that supports hundreds of thousands of UK jobs and exports. In common with No. 10, it is rapidly losing faith in this Secretary of State’s ability to lead them through this crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Questions and answers must be very brief from now on.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

When he cited the Irish example, my right hon. Friend spoke of the importance of intelligence. May I urge him, in his discussions with the slightly sleepy FSA, to challenge it on its whistleblowing procedures and incentives? We need as many people as possible to come forward, and he would be taking a great step if he asked the agency how it currently manages its whistleblowing.