Today I asked questions in the house on the badger cull, flood insurance and equal marriage. These are three areas which my constituents have expressed a great deal of concern over.

Here is the Hansard transcript with my questions and the Government’s answers:

Flood Insurance

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab):

What steps he is taking on flood insurance.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson):

We are at an advanced stage in negotiations with insurers towards producing a successor to the statement of principles. Today, the Association of British Insurers has written to say that insurers will continue to abide by the current agreement for a month beyond the end of June to allow further time for the outstanding issues to be concluded. I am placing a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. We are aiming to conclude negotiations as soon as possible to ensure that households can continue to access affordable flood insurance.

Mr Bradshaw:

A one-month extension is simply not good enough. The Government have had three years in which to sort out the problem, and, in the meantime, householders and businesses in Exeter and throughout the south-west face huge hikes in their premiums because of the uncertainty. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor understand that no country in the world has a free market in flood insurance, and that there will have to be some sort of underwriting if there is to be a deal?

Badger Cull

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab):

What is the Government’s estimate of the costs of policing the badger cull, and who will pay for it?

Mr Heath:

We have made it very clear that this Department will cover the marginal costs to the police forces involved of policing the cull, when it takes place. Obviously, the level of costs will be entirely dependent on the level of illegal activity in the areas in which the cull is taking place.

Equal Marriage

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab):

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the Church of England’s formal evidence to the Bill Committee, given orally, the Bishop of Norwich made it quite clear that the Church was perfectly happy with the existing and unamended safeguards that the Government have provided in the Bill? What damage does he think it would do to the established status of the Church of England if the bishops in the other place were to use their privileged position to try to thwart legislation that had the overwhelming support of this House in a free vote?

Sir Tony Baldry:

Members of the House of Lords, irrespective of where they come from, are Members of Parliament, and the other place is a revising Chamber and has perfectly good constitutional arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman will not be insensitive to the fact that there are still concerns about, for example, the position of Church of England or faith schools that wish to teach traditional concepts of marriage and whether they will be protected under the Bill. I am quite sure that, from the position he adopts and comes from, it must be in his interest as much as it is in anyone else’s that we get this legislation right.

Below is a link to my article in the Western Morning News about the impact of Thatcher and Blair on the politics of today:

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Labour-leader-sees-flaws-Thatcher-Blair-legacies/story-18777987-detail/story.html#axzz2RHVXrI91

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.

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/

Written Questions

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:

www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2013/jan/horse-update

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.

Spoken Question

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.

I recently took part in a pairing scheme run by the Royal Society aiming to give both politicians and scientists a chance to experience each others field of work.

Last year Dr Plaut shadowed me around Westminster for a week and this time it was my turn to try a change of scenery; I was given an insight into scientific research methods by Dr Plaut at Exeter University.  I have thoroughly enjoyed this experience and below you can find a link to the article on the University’s website.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_255772_en.html

Picture: Dr Plaut and I at Westminster

Below is a link to my article on David Cameron’s recent decision to commit to a referendum on our EU membership years in advance. This is an unwise move and could spell disaster for him and his party.

Article: http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/24/referendum-folly/

Below is a link to my article in the Exeter Express and Echo about the Governements plans to freeze benefits. It explains the damage this proposal will cause and why the coalition is taking the wrong approach to encourage people to find employment.

Article: http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Ben-Bradshaw-Benefits-freeze-discourage-workers/story-17815489-detail/story.html#axzz2K7C7JidY

Yesterday I attended the Westminster Hall Debate on Criminal Justice, see below my speech and intervention:

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Let us be clear-when people are behind the wheel of a vehicle, they are in charge of a lethal weapon. If somebody is killed or seriously maimed because of careless or dangerous driving, that is no different from killing or seriously injuring someone through any other kind of negligent or dangerous behaviour.

According to figures given to me in parliamentary answers, more than 500 killer drivers have avoided jail in the past five years. While the number of people convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving in England and Wales between 2007 and last year rose, there was a dramatic fall in the proportion of those convicted receiving a custodial sentence.

In 2008, there were 271 such convictions; in 2011, there were 383. However, in 2008, 90% of drivers who were convicted went to jail, while in 2011 only 50% of them did. That is totally unacceptable for the families and loved ones of the victims. They feel a deep sense of injustice and unfairness when they see somebody who has killed their loved one get off with little more than a rap on the knuckles. It brings the whole of our criminal justice system into disrepute.

I welcome the relatively new Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), to her post. I have not had the opportunity to congratulate her personally because I do not see her anymore around our neighbouring offices. I hope this will not damage her career, but I was delighted at her well deserved promotion. I have a number of questions for her; if she cannot answer them now, I would be grateful if she wrote to me.

Has there been any change in the sentencing guidance issued to courts in relation to these offences? If the guidance has not changed, how does she explain the huge drop, which is way beyond the possibility of statistical fluctuation based on the individual circumstances of the cases? Will she agree to the request from CTC and other cycling and road safety groups for a review of how the criminal justice system is working in these cases?

We have a good record in Britain, going back over many years, of improving our road safety and reducing death and injury on the roads. That has not happened by accident; it has happened through joined-up Government policies that have boosted safety and changed our whole culture and attitudes towards road crime. I am sure that the Minister, who is a reasonable woman, would not wish to see the recent worrying reversal of that progress as part of her legacy. To avoid that, she needs to ensure that we can restore the confidence of the victims of road crime in the justice system.

My intervention later in the debate:

Mr Bradshaw: I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to respond to the points made by three hon. Members about road traffic victims. Would she at least agree to meet a delegation led by British Cycling to discuss the issue?

Mrs Grant: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree to meet a delegation.