February 28, 2013 in Uncategorized
Below is the link to the third issue of my monthly news letter, feel free to subscribe through the link or by form on the right hand side of the page.
February 7, 2013 in Local
This is great news. I’d like to thank Exeter City Council and Devon County Council for their help in lobbying and the floods Minister Richard Benyon for heeding our concerns. As well as the Express and Echo for their campaigning on the issue. Not only should the work help reduce the risk of serious flooding to Exeter in the years to come, it will also provide a much needed boost to the local economy and the construction industry in particular. There is likely to be disruption during the construction phase – but that is inevitable and is a small price to pay for better protection from the devastating impact of flooding in the long term.
February 6, 2013 in Parliament
Along with many other MPs I spoke in the Equal Marriage debate on the 5th of February, my speech can be found below. I am pleased to say the bill was passed with huge majority of 400-175.
I have also included my recent questions on Civil Partnerships and Women Bishops, two other issues I continue to follow closely.
Equal Marriage Speech
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): May I say what a privilege it is to follow that excellent speech.
Given the time constraints, I will focus my comments on my perspective as a member of both the Anglican Church and the Ecclesiastical Committee of this and the other place. I entirely support the Government’s decision to make this a permissive law, allowing those religions and denominations that wish to celebrate the loving same-sex relationships of their members to do so. As the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, it would have been completely perverse to say to Quakers, the United Reformed Church or progressive synagogues, which wish to value and support their gay and lesbian members fully, that they would not be allowed to do so.
Indeed, there are many Anglicans and Roman Catholics who wish that their Churches were as open and welcoming as those that support the Bill entirely. In fact, all the opinion polls show that a majority not just of the public, but of Anglicans and Roman Catholics in this country support equal marriage. However, in their wisdom, the leaderships of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are not yet prepared to take such a step. That is their prerogative. It is perfectly possible to make the argument that, as a particular religion understands it, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. However the Churches’ credibility in arguing that would be a lot greater if they welcomed and celebrated civil partnerships. The fact that they do not do so leads me to conclude only that their objection to the Bill is not about the institution of marriage or even the word, but about a residual prejudice against same-sex relationships.
The Church of England has claimed, and repeated in the briefing provided for today’s debate, that because of its established status and the need for state law and canon law to be compatible, it requires an extra safeguard in the Bill that specifically does not allow same-sex weddings in the Church of England and Church in Wales—the so-called quadruple lock. When, however, in the presence of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Members of this House and the other place asked the Bishop of Leicester, who speaks for the bishops in the other place, why the Church wanted that quadruple lock, he said
“we didn’t want it, hadn’t asked for it, and hadn’t been consulted.”
When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be grateful if she could clear up the confusion in Anglican circles on the issue of the quadruple lock. Were the Church of England to embrace same-sex marriage at some stage—as I and many in the Church hope it will—will the Minister confirm that there will be no need for more primary legislation or an amendment to primary legislation in this House, as has been stated?
I am not a constitutional expert, but having been in this House for 15-odd years I am not aware of any precedent whereby an outside institution can unilaterally decide to change primary legislation passed in this House. I therefore question the Church of England’s claim that were it to change its mind in future, it could do so just like that—easy, the Synod could get on and vote for it and we would not have to do anything. My fear is that it would be another long and convoluted process and that we would have to amend primary legislation. Will the Minister check once again whether the quadruple lock is necessary in law, and whether the Church is being completely upfront with its members about the hurdles in front of it?
I would also be grateful if the Minister would explain what would happen in the case of a Church of England priest who wanted to marry members of their congregation in another church—a Quakers meeting house, for example, or a United Reform Church. Would that priest be banned from doing so under the proposed law?
Civil Partnership Question
Mr Ben Bradshaw: What the policy of the Church of England is on celebrating civil partnerships.
Sir Tony Baldry: The Church of England’s position remains as set out in the House of Bishops pastoral statement of July 2005. A working group chaired by the former Northern Ireland Office permanent secretary, Sir Joseph Pilling, is reviewing the Church’s approach to sexuality more generally and will submit a report to the House of Bishops by the end of this year. A private member’s motion seeking to authorise the registration of civil partnerships in Church of England churches is due for discussion in the General Synod in due course.
Mr Bradshaw: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of senior Church of England bishops have, in the context of the debate on same-sex marriage, expressed their support for civil partnerships, but would the Church of England’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and the distinction it tries to draw, be more credible and have more authority if it allowed Church of England parishes that want to conduct civil partnerships to do so?
Sir Tony Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. Given the sensitivity of the issue, the most sensible thing for me to do is to ensure that his comments and those of any other right hon. and hon. Members are drawn to the attention of Sir Joseph Pilling.
Women Bishops Question
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the honourable Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, what discussions he has had on the emergency powers or procedures available to expedite the passage of a new Women Bishops Measure.
Sir Tony Baldry: I refer the hon. Member to the memorandum from the Secretary General of the General Synod which was placed in the Library of the House on 19 December.
It is my understanding that the working group established by the House of Bishops had its first meeting on 3 January and meets again on 30 January in preparation for facilitated discussions with a larger group and a meeting of the House of Bishops in the first week of February.
February 6, 2013 in Parliament
I have been following the horse meat burger issue very closely, below are the questions I have put to the Government about this matter in the last month. Source: Hansard http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether inspections by the UK Food Safety and Food Standards Authorities routinely involve DNA testing to identify the contamination of foodstuffs.
Anna Soubry: The analysis of food products using DNA-based methodology is an established technique and used routinely by United Kingdom official control laboratories and commercial laboratories. These tests are used most often to determine fish species in food products, and presence of genetically modified organisms. Six UK official control laboratories are able to analyse meat to determine whether it contains horse DNA using DNA-based methodology.
The DNA analysis method is only one of the analytical methods available to determine whether substitution of meat has taken place. Other analytical methods include ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immuno-absorbent Assays) testing kits that match proteins present in a food product with proteins present in known meat species.
Each year, local authorities carry out a substantial amount of sampling of meat identification to ensure that the meat species in meat products match the expectations of the label description. In 2012, at least 796 samples were tested for meat identification (testing for other meat species in meat products) as part of local authority risk-based sampling programmes. While some of the samples were found unsatisfactory, none had been tested for presence of horse meat.
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he was informed about the sale of beef burgers on sale in Britain which were possibly contaminated with horse and pork meat; and what steps he has taken in response to this information.
Anna Soubry: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was notified by Food Safety Authority Ireland on 14 January that they were proposing to report on the analysis carried out into a number of meat products; including beef burgers, which revealed that some contained horse and pig DNA.
The FSA has launched an urgent investigation into this issue and are working closely with the Department for Environment; Food and Rural Affairs on this. A four-point plan has been published on the FSA website at:
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take against those retailers who have sold inaccurately labelled meat products.
Anna Soubry: The food businesses which the Food Safety Authority Ireland survey named as having sold inaccurately labelled products, are under investigation by local authority officers who are responsible for enforcing food composition and safety legislation. These investigations may lead to formal action.
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials of his Department work on monitoring food composition; and how many did so in 2010.
Mr Heath: The Food Standards Agency, and not DEFRA, has responsibility within central Government for food law enforcement, which includes the routine monitoring of foodstuffs to ensure compliance with the legislation on food quality, composition and standards.
However, the administration of a food authenticity research programme that funds the development of methods to detect food mis-labelling and food fraud was an area of responsibility that transferred from the Food Standards Agency to DEFRA in July 2010 under the Machinery of Government changes. Three posts were transferred from the agency to DEFRA as a result of that change. The methods developed under the food authenticity research programme are used by trading standards officers and public analysts in official control laboratories in carrying out their enforcement duties.
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Dalepak Hambleton plant in Yorkshire was last inspected; and what the nature of that inspection was.
Anna Soubry: Food law enforcement responsibility for the Dalepak plant in Hambleton Yorkshire rests with two local authorities. Hambleton district council is responsible for enforcement of food safety legislation, and North Yorkshire district council is responsible for enforcement of food composition and labelling legislation. The two authorities work closely to share information and carry out joint inspections where appropriate.
Hambleton district council inspected these premises on 25 June 2012 to check compliance with food hygiene legislation, this comprised an inspection of the premises, documentary and traceability checks.
North Yorkshire Trading Standards Officers inspected the premises on 6 March 2012 to check compliance with meat composition and labelling requirements.
The Environment Agency last visited the site on 3 March 2012, where their audit focused on the site’s preventative maintenance regime, environmental management procedures and ensuring that the outlets for wastes generated during food production complied with the relevant waste management regulations. During their audit the Environment Agency did not identify any areas where the operator was not complying with the conditions of their environmental permit.
Mr Ben Bradshaw: I have to tell the Minister that he is striking a very ill-judged tone. Where is the Secretary of State? Will these retailers be prosecuted? Was it not total folly to remove any responsibility for food safety or standards from the independent Food Standards Agency to his Department?
Mr Heath: I have already explained that we have not done that. It is the policy on food labelling, which is considered at Agriculture Council, that is within DEFRA. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman’s other comments require a reply.
Roger Williams: At a time when commodity prices are very high, food adulteration is likely to become a bigger problem. When we have high-priced beef and—as I understand it—low-priced horsemeat, some unscrupulous food processors are likely to take advantage. Will the Minister therefore ensure that when commodity prices are high throughout the food chain, the Food Standards Agency has responsible processes in place to ensure that adulteration cannot happen in this country, and that British food maintains its high status?
Mr Heath: We certainly need to do that—that is one of the things that is in train. I have said that the FSA operates on the basis of intelligence—it will continue to do so, because it is important that we find where adulteration takes place. However, it is important to say that manufacturers and retailers have a responsibility to establish very clearly the provenance of the food they supply. Most retailers and processers in this country do an extremely good job of exactly that, but when the system falls down, we must investigate and take appropriate action.
Barry Gardiner: People trust brands such as Tesco to have precisely sourced their supply. The Minister rightly said that it is not illegal to sell horsemeat in this country, but he also rightly said that it is illegal to sell horsemeat if it is not properly labelled as such. What steps have been taken to prosecute Tesco and others for their failure to label properly the food they were supplying to their customers?
Mr Bradshaw: Answer the question this time.
Mr Heath: I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for his advice.
The investigations will precede the prosecution process. That is the way we do things in this country. We investigate first and take prosecutions to court if it is appropriate to do so. I do not think—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. I understand the strength of feeling on the matter and the considerable expertise of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), but I would look to him ordinarily to behave in a statesman-like manner, and he fell short of the standard on that occasion. He must calm himself. Let us hear the answer.
Mr Heath: As I was saying, if prosecutions are required, they will of course take place, either in this country or in the Republic of Ireland as appropriate. However, it is important to gather evidence before mounting a prosecution.