UK Parliament / Open data

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Proceeding contribution from David Nuttall (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 12 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bills on Sustainable Livestock Bill.
My hon. Friend makes a point that I shall raise shortly, because the Bill is silent on that. The list of bodies that support the Bill further includes the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Campaign for Real Farming, Compassion in World Farming, War on Want, the World Wildlife Fund, the Grasslands Trust, and even the Guild of Food Writers, to name but a few. One may well ask why the Bill attracts such wide support. The reason, I submit, is that they all intend to use it to achieve their own particular campaigning ends. The Bill might, on the face of it, appear to be simply about sustaining livestock, but all those diverse organisations see it as a means of forcing Government to carry out the policies that they would wish to see implemented. The House will have noted that unusually for a Bill, it does not contain any specific policies. It does, I accept, set out what might be called a policy aspiration, but there are no specifics as to what Government are expected to do. We can only speculate on what such policies might entail. Indeed, some may venture that the reason specific policies are not contained in the Bill is that they would be so unpopular that they would engender yet more opposition to it. One clue is contained in the postcard campaign organised by Friends of the Earth which is headed ““Join the Moovement””, with the strapline,"““Put your hoof down for planet-friendly farming””." The covering letter sent to Members with the postcard states:"““The Bill calls on Government to produce a strategy that assesses the impacts the livestock sector has on the environment, sets out the policy changes needed to reduce them, ensures problems are not simply moved overseas, and supports a sustainable and thriving UK farming industry.””" Having read the Bill, I cannot see where the word ““strategy”” appears at all, and nowhere are any policy changes set out. I am not sure whether the promoter and sponsors of the Bill had considered the coalition Government's ““Programme for Government”” document, but if they had, they would have found a series of policies—real policies—that seem to cover many of the areas of concern mentioned in the Bill. For example, on page 17 there is a commitment to introduce measures to protect wildlife, halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity. There is a commitment to working towards a ““zero waste economy””, and on page 18 there is a commitment to promote high standards of farm animal welfare. I submit that the reason none of these policies is sufficient is that the promoter and many of the supporters of the Bill would like to see the United Kingdom go much further. I entirely accept that these interest groups represent areas of concern for many people, but I wonder whether it is appropriate for what is, by any assessment, a minority of people to use this Bill as a Trojan horse eventually to force others to accept the diet that they themselves have chosen to adopt.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
518 c564-5 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top