International Whaling Commission (65th Meeting)

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I was pleased to attend the first day of this year’s meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Slovenia (IWC65). I made very clear our commitment to maintaining the moratorium on commercial whaling and also to supporting ongoing work to strengthen IWC conservation and welfare initiatives.

I am happy to report that all UK objectives for this meeting were achieved. Most notable was the adoption of the UK-led welfare action plan, setting in train a programme of work to improve the IWC’s consideration of cetacean welfare. We worked hard with all IWC parties, including whaling nations such as Norway and Japan, to table a proposal that achieved consensus. This was a considerable achievement which demonstrates our strong leadership on such issues.

The UK-led recommendations to strengthen IWC conservation financing and improve financial governance and transparency were similarly adopted by consensus and praised. I was especially pleased at the significant floor time given to the conservation of small cetaceans by the IWC, with the UK raising our concerns about a number of species globally, including the Maui and Vaquita, as well as noting our concerns about ongoing hunts of small cetaceans. In addition, a resolution which sought to enhance international co-operation on highly migratory species, including small cetaceans, was adopted.

A number of other resolutions and schedule amendments were adopted at IWC65. This included a request from Denmark for an aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) quota for Greenland. This followed a controversial two year period where Greenland hunted in the absence of an IWC endorsed quota. In addition, an EU resolution on ASW, which seeks to improve IWC approaches to ASW, including the standardisation of needs statements, was also adopted as part of this package.

An important resolution that sought to incorporate the findings of the March 2014 judgment of the International Court of Justice on Japan’s scientific whaling in the southern ocean was adopted by a strong majority. Although it is disappointing that consensus could not be achieved, this ambitious resolution will still progress to the Scientific Committee and provide guidance in updating relevant processes for assessing scientific whaling permits.

I am especially pleased to note that the IWC has adopted measures to increase the participation of Civil Society in IWC meetings, as well as the improved consideration of conservation issues within the Scientific Committee. These two resolutions - agreed by consensus - were small but important steps forward, representing a significant achievement for the modernisation of IWC processes and continuing the work the UK began in 2011 to improve IWC governance.

A number of proposals were not successful. This included Japan’s long-standing request for a quota for “small-type coastal whaling”. In a change of approach, Japan now states that this is not a request for a new category of whaling, but a request for a quota for small scale commercial whaling. The proposal, which would undermine the moratorium on commercial whaling, was strongly defeated, but Japan will continue to pursue this issue intersessionally.

Although the UK voted in favour of establishing a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary, unfortunately the proposal narrowly missed the three-quarters majority required to be adopted. The proponents will progress this through the Scientific Committee in 2015. Another proposal we might expect to see return to the next meeting is a resolution on food security. Although all parties noted the importance of food security, a number of countries - including the UK - had concerns about the scope of the resolution and the competence of the IWC in relation to actions proposed. While the IWC can recognise the work done by organisations such as the FAO on the “right to food”, the IWC is not itself the forum for making resolutions on human rights. As no consensus was reached, the resolution was withdrawn and will be progressed intersessionally.

Finally, an EU led demarche to Iceland concerning continuing commercial whaling and international trade in whale products was delivered in Reykjavik on 15 September. Many countries drew attention to the demarche during the IWC meeting and requested that Iceland consider more profitable and sustainable alternatives like well managed whale watching.

Grimsby Seafood Manufacturers

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing the debate and bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As other Members have said, he has long been a champion of fisheries issues and the many fisheries businesses located in his constituency. Indeed, I remember when he changed his name a little over a decade ago to Austin Haddock, to highlight the plight of our fisheries industry. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting the Grimsby fish market and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), Grimsby Seafood Village. I also visited the new Morrison’s fish processing facility, and at a dinner I had the opportunity to meet representatives of Young’s to discuss some of their plans and aspirations. I understand how important the sector is to the local economy around Grimsby, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate.

As the hon. Gentleman said, we have corresponded on this matter, and I have also received representations directly from Young’s Seafood. He expressed some regret that we took some time to reply to that letter, but I assure him that there was a good reason for that. When I was shown the initial draft, it said that we could not do anything, and I wanted to explore the issue further. I put a hold on the letter and said I wanted a meeting to explore the issue with officials, to discuss it more fully with our lawyers and to challenge the legal opinion that we had. During that discussion, however, I was persuaded that their interpretation was correct. I will come on to explain the reasons for that, but first, I underline my support for the fish processing industry. When I visited Grimsby earlier this year, I saw at first hand what a forward-looking and dynamic sector it is. As well as employing thousands of people, it plays a vital role in providing the whole country with affordable, healthy food.

The hon. Gentleman and I have something in common: we are both on the Eurosceptic side of the political spectrum, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum on many other things. He has been consistent; I remember him saying before that his view of the European Union can be summed up in four words, and three of them are “the European Union”, and I can see that that has not changed at all. When I was the director of the “No” campaign against the euro, he played a leading part from the Labour Benches. I am afraid that the regulations I will describe will probably not do anything to diminish his scepticism on the European Union.

There are two issues under consideration: first, what constitutes a seafood business, and, secondly, whether such a business should be eligible for financial support from public funds. On the first question, which relates to the state aid rules, there are two relevant regulations. The first is the fisheries block exemption regulation, EC regulation 736/2008, which concerns aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products. The second is the fisheries de minimis regulation, EC regulation 717/2014. Both are clear, in alignment with the financial measures under the common fisheries policy, that they apply to the entire fisheries sector. The rules cover not only fishing or fish farming, or even the primary stages of processing, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but all stages of production, including the processing and marketing of the finished product. The regulations effectively mean that support can only be offered in accordance with the conditions set out in the European fisheries fund, which is soon to become the European maritime and fisheries fund. There is a de minimis exemption for small projects, up to a total of just €30,000 over three years. I appreciate that such a small amount is of little comfort to Young’s, which has such an ambitious project.

I have some sympathy with the argument that a company, as the hon. Gentleman said, may primarily be a food manufacturer that produces meals of all kinds, rather than just a fisheries business, but I cannot agree that we are gold-plating the EU state aid requirements. They have a little room for interpretation, but it is just that: a very small amount of room. In this instance, it cannot reasonably be argued that a business whose entire product range appears to be fish-based is anything other than a fisheries business, as defined under the regulations.

We have applied the rules consistently, and have rejected similar large proposals from large applicants on exactly the same grounds. To be consistent, we have to apply the same approach now. If we were to take a high-risk approach on Young’s and allow it to receive this aid, the risk would lie with Young’s. The European Commission could decide that the aid was unlawful and require it to be repaid. If Young’s had already invested the funds in infrastructure and jobs, it would then be in the unenviable position of having to repay the aid in full, plus interest. That could pose a greater risk to the business than simply being clear in the first place that it is not eligible. In addition, should the Commission find the UK to be systematically making unlawful payments, that would put the entire programme at risk.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question: what do other countries do? As a Eurosceptic, I always ask whether we are gold-plating regulations and what other countries do. The risk I described is not theoretical. There was a similar case in 2012 concerning a manufacturer of frozen fish products in Spain. The European Commission opened a formal investigation to determine whether the type of aid proposed was compatible with the internal market. It concluded that it was not, which resulted in the entire project being cancelled and the funds disallowed. If we look at what happened with that case and the approach we have taken with other large processors, we have to be consistent and recognise the risks of doing what the hon. Gentleman urges us to do.

It is not all bad news for Grimsby, however. There are a lot of good projects that have been supported through the European fisheries fund. Some 31 projects carried out by seafood businesses in the Grimsby area have already received some £3.2 million of European fisheries funding under the current programme. Individual grants have ranged from £4,000 to £1.2 million. Those projects have already delivered a wide range of local benefits, including port improvements, new processing units and ice plant facilities in the fish market, which have allowed local businesses to grow and prosper. When I visited the Grimsby Seafood Village, I saw a lot of those businesses benefiting from new premises and new investment to allow them to take their businesses forward.

While very large companies would be excluded from such support under most scheme rules due to their size, there are also significant general EU restrictions on large companies receiving state aid. That is simply because the European Commission has concerns that large subsidies in the fish processing sector would seriously distort the market. That is why the de minimis ceiling for state aid has been set at €30,000 over a three-year period. Additionally, the European Commission is explicit in stating that aid can be used only to support activity that a company would not otherwise undertake. That is what they call the incentive effect, and it is contained in article 7 of the fisheries block exemption regulation, which stipulates:

“Aid shall be considered to have an incentive effect if it enables the beneficiary to carry out activities or projects which it would not have carried out as such in the absence of the aid.”

I am not sure that we can make that case with Young’s.

[Austin Mitchell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. First, he is telling us why it cannot be done, but fish is only a part of the fish meals prepared by Young’s. There are other ingredients, whether carrots or chips or whatever. This is food manufacturing, so why can it not get support for the other sides of the process, which would help it to expand? The problem is that the alternative available sources of fishing finance mentioned by the Minister are only small-scale stuff compared with the big investment need of Young’s. Secondly, what are the British Government doing in Europe to change the situation?

[George Eustice]

I will come on to that second point, but on the hon. Gentleman’s first point about Young’s selling products that are not predominantly fish, when I had that meeting with officials I said, “Go and look at Young’s website and look at their entire product range. Let’s see what they are actually selling.” We could not find a product that was not fish or predominantly fish or one that would not fall within the definition of fish product under the regulations.

I want to finish the point that I was making about investment. Taking a broader perspective across the Humber, most businesses have benefited from some large-scale investment. Some £260 million in public and private funding is being invested under the local enterprise partnership growth programme. There is also the electrification of the east coast main line right out to the coast, so we are doing many things to help Grimsby.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second point about what the Government are doing, the Government recognise not only that large companies are often part of the driving force behind growth in the regions, but also that they can in many cases have the greatest impact on the environment. As such, we are in discussion with the European Commission about ensuring that when it comes to investment in environmental protection or upgrading a plant’s facilities to help the environment, we may indeed be able to change the block exemption rules. We will work with the Commission on that for the benefit of those sectors of UK industry that stand to benefit, including the companies discussed today. We have already raised the matter with the Commission and if we get the proposal through, it could be of benefit to companies operating in the aquaculture and fish processing sectors and would at least help to support their investments in some of their environmental improvement, which we would encourage.

In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for his efforts in securing the debate. I reassure him that I did not just sign a letter and send it back. When I saw the draft, I was clear with officials that I wanted a meeting to get to grips with the issue. Having discussed the matter with our lawyers in some depth, I am afraid that my conclusion was that their interpretation and the Marine Management Organisation’s approach had been right, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to set out what we have done and the attempts that I made on his behalf to explore this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Food Fraud

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will also say that that is the way forward. It is not only about routine checks or risk assessment-based checks but turning up unannounced.

The hon. Lady rightly made a point about Troop and the FSA leadership, and clarity of roles. She also talked about the police’s powers of arrest, and I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), a former Minister in the Department who also has great experience, discussed the importance of cultural change, which is crucial. He rightly talked about the importance of driving this through every area, including catering. It has to go deep into every individual sector and employee as well as the bosses and the leadership. The importance of caterers was brought home in the horsemeat scandal, because horsemeat was appearing not only in hospitals and schools but in the food used by caterers who were supplying Royal Ascot and the royal family—so at least we were all in it together.

On the complexity of the supply chain, Elliott says that we have to recognise that, even though it is more desirable to have shorter supply chains and to encourage food retailers and providers to move towards them, we are in a global system, under which global intelligence and the pursuit of crime come into play. He also says, wisely, that ultimately the food price wars that take place from time to time, including now, are not good for the consumer if they jeopardise food authenticity or—heaven help us—food safety.

The hon. Member for York Outer spoke up strongly for British farming and food produce. He talked about the gold standard of British farming and I agree with him. Curiously, when we were on the Government Benches, others would shout at us about gold-plating, but that is exactly the gold standard he was talking about. That is the reason our exports to many other countries are doing well—they demand the standards of animal welfare, hygiene and testing that this country delivers. Regulation is a darn good thing when it protects the consumer and allows us to export around the world. Curiously, the FSA has traditionally been looked on as the gold standard of food regulation.

The hon. Gentleman also talked wisely about the importance of knowing where our food actually comes from. There is a great deal of work to do on that right across the population, ourselves included. There is real value in knowing where food comes from; it ties into so many good things.

The Labour party is very clear—as we were when we were in government—that the consumer has always to be put first. That is why, when in government, we established a strong and independent Food Standards Agency, which had a powerful reach right across Government to regulate this vital industry that creates so many jobs and that wants the very highest standards. However, the changes brought about by tinkering with the machinery of government have jeopardised that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Professor Elliott says in his report that when the FSA had control of authenticity testing in 2007-08, under the previous Government, it took the decision, as an independent body, to cut spending on the testing programme. If the hon. Gentleman had been a Minister at the time and had received a submission recommending such a cut, would he have agreed with it or might he have questioned it?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I was not the Minister at the time, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to continue to make his point, because Professor Chris Elliott was unable to address the detail. Will he confirm whether authenticity testing continued even though it had been reduced?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Yes, it continued, but the point Elliott makes is that the FSA, as an independent body, took the decision to start winding down authenticity testing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Let me put it back to the hon. Gentleman: when the coalition Government entered office in 2010, one of their first decisions in DEFRA was to split away authenticity testing. At that point, did they think it was appropriate to increase investment in it? We could go back and forth on this issue, but authenticity testing was still happening at that time, even if it had been reduced. I am interested in the detail, but it was continuing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on securing the debate. He expressed some disappointment about the number of Members attending, but we have had a really substantive event; it does not take away from the gravity of the subject because the speeches made have really got to grips with the issues. Let me start by making it absolutely clear that food fraud is totally unacceptable: it is a crime, and this Government will not stand by while consumers are duped and deceived.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) made very clear, food and drink manufacturing is important to this country. It is our largest manufacturing sector, a significant contributor to economic growth and a big employer. British food is renowned throughout the world for its quality, and our farming industry is world-renowned for our high animal welfare standards. The integrity of our food supply chain is essential for the great reputation of our exports, as well as for the confidence of consumers at home.

I want to say a little about the action that the Government and others have already taken since the horsemeat scandal broke at the beginning of last year. First, there has been robust testing of meat by industry and by the Government, with more than 50,000 tests of processed beef products carried out during that time, and I can say that no horsemeat was present in any of those 50,000 tests undertaken since the initial scandal at the beginning of last year. The Government have provided an additional £2 million of funding to local authorities for food sampling in the current financial year to help them carry out that vital consumer protection role.

We have commissioned additional sampling and testing for authenticity in response to intelligence that has been received. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire cited the example of lamb kebabs that did not contain as much lamb as they ought to have done. There has been comprehensive sampling of take-away meals to seek undeclared meat and undeclared allergens, which are another cause of concern. We have also instigated the development of new testing to ascertain provenance and country of origin, so that we can check that the country of origin that is stated on the label is correct and that those who claim that products come from the UK are being honest.

Finally on testing, we are developing and road-testing a new method to detect undeclared offal in processed meat products. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asked me what area we would look at next and where we think there might be additional problems. This is an area that we highlighted very early on. That is why we have been developing testing in the area.

At the end of last year, the FSA set up a new intelligence hub to collect, analyse and share information on emerging risks. We have also taken action to empower consumers to understand where their food comes from. That includes improved country of origin labelling requirements for products such as lamb and pork that have been set at an EU level, which take effect from April next year. The UK argued strongly for those changes. We are also improving the public procurement of food and catering services to provide schools and hospitals with high-quality British food.

A great deal has been done, but this debate has focused very much on the final report of Professor Christopher Elliot, which was published last Thursday. I want to say at the outset that the Government have accepted all Professor Elliott’s recommendations. As I said earlier, many of them are already being implemented. We will be taking forward other improvements that were recommended by him to ensure that consumers have absolute confidence in the food that they buy. I think that there can be a universal consensus around the House about the key point that Professor Elliott made: the consumer must come first.

Chief among Professor Elliott’s recommendations was the formation of a new food crime unit, based within the Food Standards Agency. That will build on the intelligence hub that was established in the FSA at the end of last year, but will add investigative powers. We have made a commitment to establish the unit and it will be fully operational by the end of the year. Initially, it will focus on building the intelligence and evidence picture of the risks and nature of food fraud in the UK.

It is important to note that Professor Elliott made it clear both in his interim report and his final report that the incentives for organised crime to get involved in food fraud are high. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) highlighted that in his contribution. Although Professor Elliott stated that he was unable to find any credible evidence of serious organised criminals operating in this area in the UK, he highlighted the serious risk of that happening, given the incentives. The Government are not at all complacent about that. If there is any evidence of criminality in our food supply chains, we are determined to find it and fight it.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Ogmore, highlighted the importance of whistleblowing. That is the subject of one of the main recommendations made by Professor Elliott. There is a concern that employees and others who have knowledge of food fraud do not feel that they have the right mechanism through which to alert people. The FSA has had a whistleblowing service, but it is fair to say that the awareness of it has not been sufficiently high. The FSA is looking seriously at steps that can be taken to increase people’s knowledge of the whistleblowing service. In addition, steps are being taken by the food industry to put in place similar measures to make it easier for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing.

Linked to that issue is the need for better intelligence gathering and sharing across Government and the industry to improve our ability to protect consumers. As a number of hon. Members said, Professor Elliott spoke about the need for a safe haven for industry so that businesses can share intelligence in a way that does not compromise commercially sensitive information. The FSA has made a commitment to improve its systems for dealing with sensitive information and to facilitate the kind of intelligence sharing and analysis for which Professor Elliott called. We will work with the industry to facilitate its development of a safe haven to contribute to that intelligence-sharing process.

A number of hon. Members, including the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), talked about the importance of supply chain audits. That is another key theme throughout Professor Elliott’s report that we want to learn from. Professor Elliott highlighted the action that the food industry has already taken to assure the integrity of its supply chains and restore consumer confidence following the horsemeat fraud.

Professor Elliott made a number of key recommendations for the industry on that issue. First, he said that there should be a shift of emphasis towards the use of unannounced audits and the use of sampling as part of the audit process to act as a deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made the point powerfully that we need to have unannounced audits if the audits are to be meaningful.

Secondly, Professor Elliott made an important point about duplication in the audit process. The hon. Member for Ogmore has talked about Government Members being negative about regulation. We believe in having regulation where it serves a purpose, but we should all share the hope that we can remove duplication. Professor Elliott made the point that a lot of retailers are doing similar audits, but with slight differences. There is a good case for the British Retail Consortium bringing its members together to review their audit standards and give consistency to their approach to audits so that there is a single industry audit system. He also called for the introduction of a new fraud module in the audit, which is incredibly important.

We must recognise what the industry has done to restore confidence in the food supply chain. I commend the work that the Food and Drink Federation has done to introduce a guide to help its members protect themselves against the risk of food fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to that. Although a number of hon. Members, notably the former Minister, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), highlighted concerns about the catering industry, it is important to note the good work that is being done by the British Hospitality Association to engage small catering businesses on good practice in food authenticity, and its work with Whitbread to develop an audit standard for larger food service businesses. He is right to highlight the concern and there might be further difficulties in making progress on that front, but we welcome the work that the industry has done.

The shadow Minister spoke about the machinery of government. He asked why, after the interim report called for a change in the machinery of government, Professor Elliott seems to have stepped back slightly from that. Professor Elliott spells out the reason quite clearly on page 49, where he highlights the fact that representations were made to him regarding the machinery of government changes. He says:

“The review investigated this issue and was able to ascertain that the winding down of the FSA’s food authenticity programme was initiated prior to the machinery of government changes. While not attributing any blame for this decision, it was certainly not helpful”.

The final point he makes is that wherever the boundaries are drawn in the machinery of government, there will still be a need for different parts of the machinery to work together. That is why his ultimate conclusion is that wherever the boundaries are drawn, the most important priority is to have better co-ordination. That is exactly what we will deliver with the food crime unit.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse spoke about the vital role of local authorities, and around 2,500 trading standards officers provide an important part of our field force in that area. As he knows, we have made available an extra £2 million per year, and the Food Standards Agency runs training programmes for those 2,500 officers in the field. Local authorities have a legal responsibility to do that work under the Food Safety Act 1990, and a number of protocols and service agreements that the FSA has with local authorities set out exactly what is required, which is monitored centrally by the FSA. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there could be a mixed picture, with some local authorities being better than others, but the FSA monitors them and holds them to their service agreements and requirements.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

In my exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), I accepted that this issue is not necessarily about extra funding, and it is certainly not about party political control because there are good and bad local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said he believed that the FSA had information about which local authorities were good and which could perform better. Is the Minister personally examining that in discussions with the FSA or with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government? Getting those local authorities to raise their game, whatever the reason, is an objective that I am sure the Minister holds. Will he reassure the House that he is considering that issue?

[George Eustice]

The FSA manages and monitors the work of local authorities, but one of Professor Elliott’s recommendations is that we should have a new committee on food integrity and food fraud. I will chair that committee, and it will be attended by my colleagues and a Minister from the Department of Health. We will discuss those issues and monitor the situation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

Let me mention some of the other points that Members have raised. Sanctions were mentioned, and it is important to note that the maximum penalty is already 10 years. Sentences are ultimately a matter for the courts and the Ministry of Justice, but 10 years is quite a significant sentence. A number of Members asked why we have been so slow to get prosecutions, but as many will know, the City of London police are leading the investigation. There have been five arrests and two prosecutions, which are currently going through the courts. Hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment on ongoing legal cases, but we should recognise that the City of London police have faced challenges as they have had to engage with many different police forces across the European Union to bring prosecutions together, which has taken some time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the issue of labelling in the European Union. From April next year we will introduce improved country of origin labelling measures for pork, lamb and goat. In future—just as has been the case for beef for the last decade or so—pigs and sheep must be reared and slaughtered in the country that claims to be the country of origin. That is similar to the situation that pertains for beef production. On traceability, provisions have been in place for more than 12 years, and EC regulation 178/2002 requires all member states to establish a means of monitoring where the food has come from at every stage of production. That legal requirement is enforced by the FSA in this country and by other member states.

My hon. Friend made the good point—my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also alluded to this—that however good the traceability and labelling systems in place, a long supply chain is not conducive to eliminating food fraud. It is important for retailers to look at their supply chains and try to shorten them. It is also encouraging that many consumers have taken more interest in where their food comes from, and we need both consumers and retailers to take a little more interest.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he did not have the chance to reply to this point last Thursday. Will the police have powers of arrest? We will not be rushed by future business, Madam Deputy Speaker. We need to know whether the police will have powers of arrest, and who will pick up the bill for the additional costs of the food crime unit.

[George Eustice]

The key point is that the new food crime unit will have investigative powers, and it is envisaged that people from the National Crime Agency in the police force will be seconded to that unit. As my hon. Friend knows, the police always have powers of arrest—indeed, they have arrested people in this current investigation. The new food crime unit will be properly linked to the police force so that it has those powers.

Finally, let me turn to lab capacity. Professor Elliott raises a specific concern about whether there is consistency between existing private labs and their approach to testing. As a result, we accept his recommendation and have asked the analytical methods working group—an advisory panel to the Government—to consider that issue and ensure consistency. We had no lack of lab capacity in the crisis last year. In fact, our excellent laboratories at the Food and Environment Research Agency in York were on stand-by if they were needed, although in the event they were not. Private labs like LCG, which I will visit tomorrow, led on most of that work. My hon. Friend also mentioned the Danish model and expressed a view—perhaps because she has Danish roots—that it is better than the Dutch model. When it comes to the food crime unit, it is difficult to compare the Danish or the Dutch model with what we have in the UK because we have some 2,500 trading standards officers in local authorities, who are an integral part of our protection in that area.

It is perhaps fitting to conclude where my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer ended his remarks, and with Professor Elliott’s conclusion that we have some of the safest food in the world. I completely agree with him that we should protect the reputation of our hard-working farmers. The Government have introduced a new Government procurement plan which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out, will encourage greater sourcing of local food. We are also working to encourage more schools to take a greater interest in and promote food and an appreciation of food in the curriculum. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the discussion. We have covered many detailed issues, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on securing the debate.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who I know has been a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I am sure he will recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, that I pursued these issues when I was a member of the Select Committee. It would be remiss of me of not to mention Mono, my now deceased pet dog. He was a rescue dog from the RSPCA who, like many others, was a wonderfully dedicated friend, albeit with some behavioural issues.

Let me deal first with some of the issues on which the Government have made progress—tackling irresponsible owners, for example. We have increased the penalty for serious dog attacks and have made it an offence to have a dog attack on private land. We have tightened the law, too, when it comes to dog attacks on guide dogs, and we have introduced compulsory chipping. I recognise, however, that today’s theme has been about a different issue—the welfare of puppies. I have always been clear that we must look after the welfare of puppies and ensure that they are properly socialised. As many hon. Members have mentioned, that is crucial for the behaviour of the dogs as they grow up and mature.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked me to tear up my script and speak from the heart. I can confirm that I never asked for a script in the first place. I scribbled some notes of what Members said, and I want to use the available time to deal with as many points as I can.

On pet passports, I can confirm that a new EU regulation is tightening the rules of the EU pet passport scheme. From December this year, it will no longer be possible for a dog under 12 weeks to be vaccinated prior to transportation under the scheme. There is then a three-week period throughout which the puppy must remain in residence before it can be moved. In practice, that means that from December this year, no puppy or dog can be lawfully transported to this country under the pet passport scheme unless it is at least 15 weeks old.

Many hon. Members rightly raised the issue of the internet. The biggest concerns put to us by the animal welfare charities related not so much to the problem of puppy farms as to that of backstreet breeders that are completely unregulated and unlicensed. In many cases, the people involved are not the right people to be breeding dogs at all, and in the worst cases, they maltreat the puppies deliberately to make them violent by giving them violent traits—the so-called “status dogs”. That is a major concern, which is why at the end of last year, my noble Fried Lord de Mauley brought together a group in connection with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to put in place a voluntary code, which has been running since the beginning of the year. I can tell hon. Members today that, since that code was put in place, 100,000 adverts have been removed from the internet. I pay tribute to the work done by the internet companies that acted so responsibly and by all the volunteers who took part in monitoring the internet for that purpose. Given the scale of the problem, I hope hon. Members will understand that making further progress on the internet continues to be our main priority.

Let me touch on the contentious issue of the five-litter threshold, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is right. When I sat on the Committee, we highlighted some concerns about the five-litter threshold being too high. Hon. Members who follow what has happened will know that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 states that anyone carrying on a business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence, irrespective of the number of litters. However, a second clause, always intended as an anti-avoidance clause, said that irrespective of who owns the puppies on a particular premise, a licence is compulsory if there are more than five litters. That was to prevent people from claiming that some of dogs belonged to their brothers, sisters, father or whoever.

Over the last few years, however, or since the legislation was introduced, it has been apparent that local authorities have taken the five-litter threshold to be the one to work towards. It became something of a mystery, which we managed to solve last night. The reason is that in 1999 when the Act was put in place under the last Government, the Home Office sent out a circular indicating for local authorities that in most situations five litters should be taken as the threshold to use.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

Let me finish the point. Since that time, it would be fair to say—from all the representations made during today’s debate and from the recommendations of the Select Committee—that this is the wrong way to interpret the legislation. Those carrying on a business of breeding and selling dogs should be required to have a licence. I can confirm that we will write to local authorities to provide new clarity through new guidance so that they can interpret the Act in the spirit intended by the House today.

Pet shops are a key item of today’s debate. It is important to recognise that only about 2% of pet shops sell cats and dogs—around 70 in total—and they are already regulated and licensed. They are regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked me to clarify whether local authorities have the additional power to place restrictions on which animals can be sold at a licensed pet shop establishment. I can confirm that they do have the power to restrict the number of animals that can be sold. He asked, too, about the issue of ambiguity and contestability in that context. Let me clarify that the intention of the provision is for local authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis whether a particular premise is suitable for a particular animal to be sold. It is not necessary for local authorities to change the law; it is for them to have considerable discretion in making a judgment about whether it is appropriate for certain animals to be sold on the authority’s premises.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the important point that much can be done within the existing regulations. I agree. In January this year, along with the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and many other charities and organisations, we contributed to some model licence conditions that were made available to all local authorities and were published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. These included 50 pages of recommendations about the sorts of conditions that should be included in a licence for dog-breeding premises. There were strict provisions on the need for social interaction with humans, which should apply for the whole day if the buyers were present all the time.

In addition, in September 2013 we published the model conditions for pet vending, which also set out strict conditions for pet shops about the need for interaction with staff and humans. It is specifically recommended that at least four times a day a human should spend at least 20 minutes with the puppies on sale. We have already put in place important guidance on these issues.

I would like to conclude by saying that we have had a really important debate. I, too, have received many hundreds of letters on the issue and it is clearly of great importance to the country. We have 8 million dogs in this country and we are a nation of animal lovers.

[John McDonnell]

Before the Minister concludes, will he respond on the issue of local authority resources, which was raised by several Members?

[George Eustice]

All I can say on that issue is that the internet will make it easier for some local authorities to identify where they have a problem. One thing we have done in the new code, agreed with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, is provide that where a licence is held it must be advertised, and where it is not held contact details should be advertised. That gives local authorities a ready way to identify where they have the most serious problems.

In conclusion, we have had a good and important debate. The Government are committed to improving animal welfare, as I am personally. I hope that my comments today will help reassure the House that the Government are doing a considerable amount to move this item forward.

Genetically Modified Organisms: Labelling

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's position is in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations on labelling of products containing GM in the UK food chain; and if she will make a statement.

[Official Report, 22 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 1063W.]

Letter of correction from George Eustice:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on 22 July 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[George Eustice]

This issue has yet to be discussed in detail within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The Government will consider its negotiation position based on a range of factors including the environmental impact and public health benefit of such anti-microbial treatments that can reduce potential for foodborne illness.

The correct answer should have been:

[George Eustice]

The existing EU rules which require GM-derived food to be labelled are not expected to be discussed or reviewed as part of the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. If she will ensure that all halal and kosher meat is labelled at point of sale.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We believe that, in the first instance, it is for food retailers and food outlets to provide their customers with reliable information. I know that my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on this issue, but, as I have explained to him before, the introduction of a compulsory labelling scheme for halal and kosher meat would present challenges, because there is no single unified definition. Nevertheless, the European Commission is currently conducting a review, and we will consider its report when it is published later in the year. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the health of the Secretary of State is unimpaired.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister now has a chance to amend his career prospects.

[George Eustice]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall do my best,

As I have said, the European Commission is considering the issue. It is most likely to consider whether the animal was stunned or unstunned, because there is a clear definition in EU law. I am aware that groups in both halal and shechita say that they are open to exploring that further, and I look forward to having a dialogue with them and considering the European Commission report when it appears in December.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to see that the Minister survived the Prime Minister’s cull. The point that he has made is absolutely correct: it is a question of whether the animal has been stunned or not stunned. It is an animal welfare issue. Is it not the case that the majority of halal meat is from animals that were stunned? Surely that is the line that the Government should be pursuing in Brussels: “stunned” and “not stunned” labelling.

[George Eustice]

I entirely agree. There is a clear legal definition of “stunned” in EU law, namely that stunning renders the animal insensible to pain immediately. In the case of halal, some 90% of poultry and lambs have been stunned, and we should recognise that fact.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Consumers are entitled to know exactly what is going on. Does the Minister agree that what we need in all our slaughterhouses is CCTV to give them that further assurance?

[George Eustice]

We considered the issue of CCTV in slaughterhouses during our consultation on slaughterhouse regulations last year, and concluded that it would not improve the situation much. Indeed, CCTV had already been installed in some of the slaughterhouses in which problems had been exposed by, for instance, Animal Aid, and it had not prevented abuses. However, we keep an open mind.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents believe that halal and kosher food should be labelled as such, but if there are already clear EU legal definitions of “stunned” and “not stunned”, what is there to prevent the UK Government from pressing ahead with labelling food in that way?

[George Eustice]

Having looked into the matter exhaustively, we concluded that if we introduced “method of slaughter” labelling, it would be best to introduce it at European level, because that would be safer and clearer legally. Spain considered introducing a national labelling scheme in 2012, but the Commission ruled against it.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of flood defences in Gloucestershire.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the economic and environmental value of shooting sports.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The Government recognise the important contribution that shooting sports make to rural life, the economy and the environment. Although there are no Government assessments or official statistics, I am aware of a recent industry-funded study, which estimated that shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy and supports around 74,000 full-time jobs. It also assessed that the industry spends nearly £250 million a year on conservation.

[David T. C. Davies]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her new appointment. I appreciate that she and the Minister are busy at the moment, but may I draw their attention to the report by the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which outlines the enormous economic benefits to rural areas that shooting brings? Will the Government continue to support this excellent form of recreation?

[George Eustice]

As I said, we recognise the value of shooting sports. Indeed, I referred precisely to the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Shooting sports have an important role to play in rural communities and contribute to our economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that response. Almost 1 million people participate in shooting sports in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The recreation is worth £2.5 billion through spending on goods and services. What discussions has the Minister had with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance about how to complement the good work that they do in the countryside?

[George Eustice]

Tomorrow, I will be attending the CLA game fair and, among others, I will meet the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the Angling Trust. I look forward to discussing some of the issues on their agenda.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

8. What recent reports she has received of progress made by other countries on bovine TB by tackling the disease in both cattle and wildlife.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The Government are aware of the success in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Republic of Ireland in tackling the scourge of TB. For instance, in New Zealand the number of infected herds has reduced from 1,700 20 years ago to just 66 in 2011-12, whereas in the Republic of Ireland the number of BTB reactors fell by 65% between 1999 and 2013. All those countries have pursued a strategy of tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population as well as other measures.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

As we seek to tackle this dreadful disease, is not one of the main lessons from the countries the Minister listed that while we must be prepared to use every tool available to us, we must also continue to develop new tools that might as yet seem out of reach?

[George Eustice]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, which was published earlier this year, emphasised the fact that no one measure will tackle the problem. We need to pursue a range of measures, and that is why we are constantly improving our cattle movement controls and why we are spending £4 million a year investing in research into vaccines. It is also why we are continuing to develop effective cull methods.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

17. The new Secretary of State is not answering this question personally, but perhaps she might do so later. The science clearly criticises the Government’s culling policy and this House has voted twice to end it. When will the Government change their mind? Do we not now have an opportunity, with the new broom, to do so?

[George Eustice]

I disagree with the hon. Lady. The evidence is very clear that no country has ever eradicated TB without also tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. The randomised badger culling trial showed very clearly that in the four years after it concluded there was a significant reduction in the incidence of TB. I meet farmers, some of whom have closed herds but have repeated breakdowns and some of whom have been under restriction for 12 years, and although they are not bringing cattle on or off their farm, they have a reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware of the disappointment and anger among the farming community in Dorset that the badger cull was not extended to Dorset this year despite the support of both the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Will the Minister reassure the farming community in Dorset that DEFRA is on-stream to roll out effective control of bovine TB in Dorset next year?

[George Eustice]

As the former Secretary of State made clear in his statement, we listened to the recommendations of the independent expert panel. It made recommendations to improve the methodology of the cull and we are going to implement them this year. Our view is that we should improve and get the methodology of the cull right in the two existing pilots before we roll out new ones. Clearly, we will reassess the situation once this year’s culls have concluded.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

9. What progress she is making in reducing the burden of regulation on farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Small-boat fishermen in South East Cornwall and throughout Cornwall are concerned that a discard ban, along with their tiny share of the UK quota from the EU total allowable catch, will affect their economic viability. Does the Minister agree that repatriation of UK waters should have preceded a discard ban? Will he take forward a request to include repatriation of UK waters in future negotiations?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

On the small fleets, I point out to my hon. Friend that we have reallocated some of the unused quota from producer organisations to the under-10 metre fleet. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), made considerable progress in reforming the common fisheries policy. We now have far greater regional control, with member states multilaterally deciding the management plans, and flexibility on quotas and a legally binding commitment to sustainability.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

T6. May I press the Secretary of State to talk to her colleague, the Health Secretary, about how GP services in rural areas are under threat? That is a particular concern in my constituency. I urge her to push this point because they are facing a big threat—bigger than that faced by those in many other areas.

Executive Agencies (Performance Measures)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The business plans for the following agencies and their key ministerial performance measures have been published today. Business plans are available on line at the agencies’ websites.

Animal Health Veterinary Laboratory Agency, http://www. defra.gov.uk/ahvla/

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/

Food and Environment Research Agency, http://fera.defra. gov.uk/

Rural Payments Agency, http://rpa.defra.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/ home

Veterinary Medicines Directorate, http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/

I have placed copies of the key ministerial performance measures the Libraries of both Houses.

Common Agricultural Policy

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber with so many fellow farmers. I have heard many of them declare their interests this evening. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate, and thank members of the Select Committee for their report.

Let me begin by saying a little about the approach that the Government took during the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) explained very clearly the difficulty that we experienced. We set out to secure a common agricultural policy that was simpler and greener, but despite the best endeavours of my predecessors and a very talented negotiating team, we have ended up with a CAP that is more complex because it was not possible to move the European Commission, or indeed sufficient numbers of other member states, to our position. Our view all along had been that we should keep pillar one—the single farm payments—as simple as possible, and that pillar two was the right option to deliver for the agri-environment.

There are two key issues about which farmers are expressing concern. One is the issue of the three-crop rule, which will affect at least 7% of farmers; the other is the issue of the environmental focus areas and some of the administrative burdens connected with them.

It is important to note the successes that my predecessors achieved in the negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) asked what had been my achievements. I have to say that I was not involved in the negotiations, so the credit for what we achieved should go to my predecessors. However, when it came to the three-crop rule, we did manage to increase the threshold to holdings with 30 hectares or more. We did manage to get the Commission to accept that there should be a distinction between spring barley and winter barley, or spring wheat and winter wheat. And we did manage to move the Commission away from its initial proposal for action that would have been very intrusive—looking at farmers’ incomes to see exactly how much they were earning from agriculture—and, instead. to establish a negative list to remove, for instance, airports, railways and golf courses. So there were successes in the negotiations.

On implementing the CAP, however, we have tried to stay true to that basic stance that we adopted during the negotiations: first, we should keep the implementation of pillar one as simple as possible so farmers can implement this in the most flexible way that works for their own individual holding; and, secondly, we should take the environment very seriously, and we want to deliver for the environment through pillar two—through the agri-environment schemes for which this country has built up an admirable track record.

[Jesse Norman]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the shadow Minister should be so strong in his condemnation of the position the Government have ended up with through these negotiations, without in any way spelling out what the Labour party would do on any of the issues?

[George Eustice]

Well, I think there was quite a degree of consensus. I suppose we have to recognise that the last Government gave up a chunk of our rebate supposedly in order to get CAP reform, but that did not work either. I want to stay on the substance of the issue before us this evening, however.

In terms of applying this basic approach of keeping the pillar one payments as simple as possible, when it came to greening we were clear we wanted to have the flexibility to allow farmers, for instance, to use hedges to count towards their environmental focus areas.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The inclusion of hedgerows as being eligible for pillar two payments is one of the Government’s successes. On that point, while many areas of the country have hedgerows as field boundaries, there are other areas, such as the Cotswolds, that have stone walls as field boundaries. May I ask him to press the Commission hard that those sorts of landscape features should also be included for payment?

[George Eustice]

There were serious administrative difficulties in terms of allowing hedgerows and all landscape features to count towards the environmental focus area, because each one has to be mapped, and we took the decision in the end that hedgerows were so important to many parts of the country that in the first year we should include those hedgerows and endeavour to get the mapping done, and where it could not be done in year one—we have three years to complete the mapping— farmers would self-declare the hedgerows. We do not rule out adding things like stone walls in years two or three, once we have got hedgerows in place. The task of mapping every single individual feature on every farm is an enormous one, however, and we therefore wanted to start first with hedges, before moving on to things such as dry stone walls.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to try to make progress, I am afraid, and I will address many of the points my hon. Friend made if I have time to get to them.

On the agri-environment schemes, we have been clear that 87% of the pillar two budget will go on the new environmental land management scheme. At the higher end, the scheme will be broadly similar to the existing higher level stewardship scheme, but we will also have an additional rate that has more requirements and obligations than the existing entry level stewardship scheme, and which is more proactive and is almost a middle rate. These will be more targeted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire raised concerns that this would effectively lead to white areas or deserts where there would be no such support. Alongside this scheme we intend to deal with the problem of so-called white areas by ensuring that there will be directed options right around the country so that whole areas of the country will not be excluded, and grants to support the planting of woodland, for instance, will be universally available.

Many Members touched on matters relating to the three-crop rule, which will cause difficulty for some farmers—up to around 7%, possibly more. We gave serious consideration to advancing what is called a national certification scheme—a nationally designed scheme that would achieve the same thing—because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said, the three-crop rule does not in itself guarantee crop rotation. Indeed, there are all sorts of anomalies, not least that a cabbage and a cauliflower are regarded as the same crop botanically as far as the EU is concerned, and there will be lots of similar complications to work through. When we looked at the alternatives, however, we found that they were all more complicated and even more difficult to administer than what was already on the table.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the uplift to the single farm payment, which is important. It recognises the value we place on upland and moorland farmers, not just as custodians of the countryside, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, but as food producers. We are, therefore, equalising the basic payment for upland farmers and lowland farmers, and we will almost double the rate for moorland farmers to about €70 per hectare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a number of issues, the first of which related to commons. We understand the concerns about the commons register, which has always been the starting point for the mapping of commons. There are disallowance risks in departing too far from the system we have had in place to date, but I can confirm that in addition to starting with that existing commons register, the RPA will utilise other information available to it, such as aerial photography, to help ensure that those who are entitled to claim on common land can.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the issue of disallowance, and I can confirm that we have set aside a figure of 2% to plan for that. It is our aspiration to get to zero disallowance, but the way in which the disallowance scheme works is incredibly complicated and convoluted. Frequently, the disallowance we get is through no fault of our own; it is often because the European Commission does not understand its own rules, and we can get into very protracted arguments. For instance, the fruit and veg scheme has been notorious as a cause of disallowance. The system is very complicated and I do not think we will ever be able to eliminate disallowance altogether.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, have highlighted the issue of the modulation rate—the inter-pillar transfer. We have made it clear that we will modulate at 12% initially and have a review in 2016. She asked what the criteria for that will be. There are two basic criteria, the first of which is whether there is sufficient demand for those agri-environment schemes to warrant an increase in that budget. That links to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). The second is an assessment of the impact on the competitiveness of British agriculture.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), have raised concerns about the new IT system. The existing RPA computer system is simply not fit for purpose and we need a new system. The new common agricultural policy is far more complicated, and there are coefficients attached to some environmental focus areas. Somebody growing peas or beans will find that that counts for only 0.7% towards their EFA—0.7% of the area declared—whereas for hedges there is a coefficient of up to 10 times the area of the hedge. The idea that we could do this by drawing things on maps with pencil, as we do under the existing system, and sending that in to the RPA is simply not credible. We therefore believe that to cope with the new system we have to have a digital by default approach and to have everyone adding their data by computer, because that will be simpler.

I completely understand the point that many hon. Members have made about broadband access. We are investing £500 million through BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—and a further £250 million in phase 2. We have a third fund of £10 million to pilot creative ideas for those really hard-to-reach areas. In addition, we will have an assisted digital package. We will send paper guidance to every farmer in year 1, so although they will not have a paper application form, they will have paper guidance. That guidance will include detailed information on our digital offer. The crucial thing for those lacking the computer literacy to complete their form online or those who have no broadband access is that we will be setting up a number of digital service centres right around the country, particularly targeted at those areas where there is a problem. Farmers will, thus, be able physically to take their information into an office, which will have privacy and be discreet, and work with an RPA agent to enter that information on the system. That is the right thing for everyone. It is right for those farmers, because it removes the risk of them getting penalties and disallowance.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will finish now, because we are nearly out of time. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire highlighted the issues of appeals and a proportionate system. I can tell him that I am now the one who looks at those appeals, this issue is close to my heart, and we are examining it and reviewing it as I speak. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) talked about pillar two, and said that we still needed those single farm payments of pillar one. Part of the 2016 review will examine the competitiveness of agriculture.

In conclusion, we have introduced a CAP that is more complicated than we would have liked, but in the way that we are implementing it, we are staying true to the approach that we took in negotiations to make it as simple as possible

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54 (4)).

The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54)

Estimates 2014-15

Department for Work and Pensions

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £45,438,318,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233 of Session 2013-14,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £74,721,000 be authorised for use for capital

purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £44,850,071,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £968,601,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233 of Session 2013-14,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £371,350,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,308,388,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

The Speaker then put the Question on the outstanding Estimate (Standing Order No. 55)

Estimates 2014-15

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £256,135,013,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233, HC 1231, HC 1208, HC 1186 and HC 1234 of Session 2013-14, and HC 124 of this Session.

(2) further resources, not exceeding £32,926,583,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £214,518,524,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament—(Mr Gauke.)

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, 2014-15;

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Nicky Morgan, Mr David Gauke and Andrea Leadsom bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading

Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2015; to authorise both the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of income for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised for that year by this Act and by the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2014.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 33).

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 16 and 17 June. Alun Davies AM and Richard Lochhead MSP were also present for parts of the meeting.

Monday 16 June

Dairy sector

The Commission presented its report on the development of the market for dairy. This was followed by an exchange of views on the draft Council conclusions on the future of the dairy sector. The main point for discussion was the proposal, led by Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark, to relax quotas for 2014-15. After a lengthy debate and failing to achieve a qualified majority in favour of changing the current quotas, the presidency concluded that the Council conclusions could not be adopted at this Council.

School Schemes

The Council noted the presidency’s progress report on the Commission’s legislative proposals for reform of the school milk and fruit schemes without discussion.

The implementation of the provisions concerning producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform

The Council adopted conclusions on the Commission’s report on the operation of the fruit and vegetable producer organisation scheme, including a clear message on the need to cut red tape, simplify the rules and provide much needed legal certainty. The Commission made an accompanying statement committing to review the legislative framework for the fruit and vegetable sector by 31 December 2018.

CAP reform implementation

Ministers highlighted the common agriculture policy (CAP) implementation decisions they had taken and some of the accompanying challenges faced by national administrations and farmers. The UK paper requesting a pragmatic and sensible interpretation of the new CAP regulations, particularly with regard to the greening requirements, was referred to and supported by a range of other member states.

Informal Lunch—US Secretary of Agriculture

EU Ministers attended an informal lunch with US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, to discuss progress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP).

Any other business

Country of origin labelling for meat

The Commission updated member states on its exchanges with the European Parliament (EP) following the latter’s request for more detailed labelling of the country of birth on fresh meat. All those who spoke stressed that the current rules had been carefully negotiated and could not now be changed.

Severe weather in Slovakia

Slovakia raised the impact of recent storms on its forests and suggested they would call on the EU solidarity fund.

Athens conference on scientific support to agriculture

The presidency reported on a recent conference in Athens on scientific support to agriculture.

National Emissions Ceiling Directive

Twelve member states supported Hungary’s request that Agriculture Ministers be involved in negotiations on the national emissions ceiling directive given the potential impact on agriculture of restrictions on ammonia and methane emissions.

Tuesday 17 June

“Omnibus” Regulation on the Implementation of the Landing Obligation

The Council discussed the latest position on the “Omnibus” regulation, which amends existing technical rules with a view to facilitating the introduction of the landing obligation from 1 January 2015. This will now go forward for discussion with the European Parliament, to reach an agreement by the end of the year, ahead of the first year of the landing obligation.

Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy: Discard Plans

The Commission welcomed the progress made on the development of discard plans under the new regionalisation process, a new way of working that decentralises decision making and brings it closer to the fisheries affected. I intervened to reaffirm support for the introduction of the landing obligation and the regionalisation process, highlighting the work being done to tailor the first discard plans to the specific needs of the pelagic fisheries in each region.

Any other business

Management of Capelin—TAC for 2014

The Commission reported they had now received an offer of capelin from Greenland and will bring forward an amendment to the total allowable catch (TAC) and quota regulation as soon as possible to provide a TAC for this stock.

Anti-microbial resistance in animal husbandry

Sweden, supported by Denmark, called on the Commission to provide an update to the 2011 action plan on the responsible use of anti-microbials in animal husbandry, claiming that antibiotic resistance contributes to approximately 25,000 deaths per year and €1.2 billion costs to health care services. Commissioner Borg stated that this is a high priority for the Commission. A five-year road map has been published and a full progress report will be published this year.

Animal, plant and control package: smarter rules for safer food

The presidency described progress made on the package of measures. The discussion focused in particular on import controls with divergent views among Ministers on the need for a risk-based “open” system or precautionary “closed” system. I was robust in calling for the outcome to be a genuine simplification with fewer powers delegated to the Commission and respect for subsidiarity in relation to fees and charging of businesses.

Plant Reproductive Material

I specifically supported the presidency paper and its pragmatic approach. Some Ministers took the opportunity to highlight particular changes they wanted to the Commission’s proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. If he will ensure that all halal and kosher meat is labelled at point of sale.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

In the first instance, the Government believe that it is for retailers and food outlets to provide their customers with such information. However, the European Commission is currently producing a study on options for compulsory method of slaughter labelling, and we will review the options when the report is published later this year.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister is a good man, and I am sure he must understand the strength of feeling among the public about this issue. Surely it is in the best interests of everyone that halal and kosher meat be properly labelled, for the benefit of those who particularly want to buy it and those who particularly do not. Which consumers do the Government think will be disadvantaged by having meat fully and properly labelled at the point of sale?

[George Eustice]

I am aware of the strength of feeling on the issue, and my hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner on it, ever since his ten-minute rule Bill two years ago. There are two difficulties with the approach he suggests. In the case of halal meat, we must remember that about 80% is stunned anyway, so “halal” does not distinguish between stunned and unstunned meat. When it comes to kosher meat, we should recall that the hind quarters of the carcase are not deemed kosher anyway, so an approach along the lines he suggests would not help consumers who want to avoid unstunned meat. However, we will examine method of slaughter labelling when the European Commission produces its report, which is expected in the autumn.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Farmers and food producers raise the issue of labelling often with me and other Members. Can the Minister assure the House that his Department is doing everything it can to have clear labelling on all packaging, particularly after the horsemeat crisis and various other issues, so that we can have country of origin and even region of origin labelling on our packaging?

[George Eustice]

Some new labelling requirements from the European Union have just been put in place, to distinguish between animals that are born, reared and slaughtered in a particular country, reared and slaughtered there or simply slaughtered there. That is a major improvement. We have stopped short of having compulsory country of origin labelling on processed foods, because the European Commission report suggested that it would be incredibly expensive to implement. However, we do encourage voluntary labelling on such products, and there has been widespread uptake of that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am sure my constituents in Kettering would want to see halal and kosher meat labelled as such. Although the Minister is a good man, the response drafted for him by his Department was weak and pathetic. If we wait for the European Commission to rule, we will have to wait for ever. If his objection is that there is no distinction between stunned and non-stunned meat, why not label meat as such? Why cannot the UK do that ahead of the European Commission?

[George Eustice]

The advice we have received is that it would be better to introduce such regulation at European level. A number of other countries have considered it, including Spain and France, and have run into difficulties. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point—if one were to introduce compulsory method of slaughter labelling, I think one would go not for labelling as halal or kosher, for the reasons I gave earlier, but for labelling as stunned or unstunned.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. What recent steps he has taken to implement the Government’s strategy on dangerous dogs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

On 13 May, new amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 came into force, including higher sentences for dog attacks, an extension of the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private places, and a specific offence for a dog attack on an assistance dog.

[Ian Lavery]

In my constituency there has been a spate of vicious dangerous dog attacks, the latest on an eight-year-old girl named Grace Lucas, who suffered horrible injuries to her face. The real problems are a lack of education and, of course, irresponsible dog ownership. What are the Government doing to tackle those important issues?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Before I became a Minister, I followed the issue closely from the Back Benches. We are doing two things. Later this year we will introduce community protection notices, which will introduce new powers, for instance to issue orders to require an owner to keep their dog on a lead, muzzle their dog or put postbox guards on their door. In extreme cases, there will be powers to insist on a dog being neutered. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about responsible dog ownership. That is why we are clear that anybody who is breeding dogs for sale should have a licence.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

I recently attended a free Dogs Trust chipping event in Blacon in my constituency, and I noticed that a lot of people were unaware that it will be compulsory to have dogs chipped in England from 2016, and Wales from 2015. What is the Minister doing to ensure that dog owners are aware that that will be compulsory from 2016?

[George Eustice]

That is an important point and we must ensure that dog owners are aware of those proposals. We are working with veterinary practices across the country to ensure that they know about them and are passing the information on to dog owners. We will also run a communications exercise in the press to raise the issue.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government have taken to respond to recent flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

4. What progress he is making on opening up new markets to British farmers and food producers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

In 2013 we opened 112 markets for animals and animal products, helping increase exports to non-EU markets by £179 million, to £1.35 billion. We continue to negotiate with third countries, and so far in 2014 have opened 54 new markets.

[Andrew Jones]

Building on that success and the growing reputation for British food and drink abroad, which I know from my own experience as an exporter in the sector, what plans do the Government have to use international sporting events, such as the Grand Départ of the Tour de France which arrives in Harrogate and Knaresborough in just three weeks, as a platform further to promote that success?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has been an enthusiast for this event coming through his constituency. He raises an important point. We will be looking to use all opportunities we can to promote British foods. Major sporting events are an excellent way for companies to showcase their products. UK Trade & Investment Yorkshire and the Humber is bringing in a series of buyers from around the world to meet local companies at a “meet the buyer” event at the Carriageworks in Leeds on Wednesday 2 July. Many of those buyers will then travel on to the International Festival for Business in Liverpool.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Our egg producers have been outraged to learn that Italy will face no financial penalties for its failure to implement the EU directive that outlaws battery cages. Our poultry farmers have invested millions of pounds to comply with the law, and, as a result, have put themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a very tough international market. Why does the UK implement EU directives that other countries see fit to ignore, and what will the Government do to support our poultry sector?

[George Eustice]

The Government have consistently raised concerns about other member states not complying with the rules on battery cages that were introduced two years ago. It is fair to say that the Commission has taken this matter seriously and has brought some cases against some member states in the European Court of Justice. We continue to maintain pressure on the Commission, but I believe it takes the matter seriously and is taking the appropriate action.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Minister will be aware of the drastic reduction in farm-gate beef prices and the effect that has had on confidence in the sector. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that reduction has taken place? What is he doing to find other markets that will encourage an increase?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is one of the key issues being raised with Ministers as we go around agricultural shows. We will have a summit on the matter before the summer recess. A number of factors are driving this: it is partly due to changes in global commodity prices, but it is also clear that in some cases supermarkets are taking a larger margin than before. Regarding solutions, we are keen to open new export markets for British beef so that farmers can get a better price. We are also keen to ensure that there is fair contracting between farmers and processors, and between processors and retailers.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The Minister will be aware of my correspondence on the export of pork to China. From his correspondence to me on 8 May, I know that inspections are to take place with the authorities in Northern Ireland, as DEFRA regulates the negotiations on behalf of the whole of the UK. Will the Minister advise the House on when those inspections will take place? What is the possibility of approval following on from that?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady has raised this issue with me a number of times and we have had meetings on it. It was also raised with me at a meeting in Northern Ireland at the beginning of this year, and we continue to raise it with the Chinese authorities. When Mr Zhi, the Chinese farming Minister, was in the UK in April we took the opportunity to raise it again. We want more meat processors to be able to export pork to China and we need clearance for their plants. We will continue to keep up the pressure.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Exporting beef would improve the market here, and I know the Secretary of State has done an excellent job in China. Japan still bans our beef, right back from the days of BSE. We now have BSE completely under control, so it is time those markets were opened up again. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister do their very best to make sure that happens?

[George Eustice]

All I can say to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of this industry for many years, is that we are working on many different fronts to create new markets. In the past year, we have opened markets for breeding cattle to countries such as China, for pig meat to Chile and for dairy to Cuba. In the year ahead, we will continue to look at exporting beef to Singapore and poultry meat to Papua New Guinea. The country is working incredibly hard to open as many new export markets as possible.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

5. What steps he plans to take to ensure that the monitoring of the pilot badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire is independently scientifically evaluated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

8. What recent estimate he has made of levels of UK fish stocks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea assesses the state of EU fish stocks annually. The next round of advice for the majority of European fish stocks, including those in UK waters, will be released on 30 June, and will inform decisions on 2015 fishing quotas that will be made at the 2014 December EU Fisheries Council.

[Mr Amess]

Given that fishing is such an important part of Southend’s economy, it is very disappointing that stocks of sole, plaice, cod and herring have been depleted as a result of channel deepening via suction dredging. Will my hon. Friend please look into that, and ensure that the Thames estuary is pollution-free and full of fish again?

[George Eustice]

This issue was raised with me during a recent conference of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and my hon. Friend has written to me about it as well. The chief fisheries science adviser at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has subsequently overseen an initial investigation of the issue, and has prepared a detailed report that acknowledges that there has been a decline in stocks recently. The cause of the decline is not clear, but some have pointed the finger at the London Gateway development. Other possible causes include the discharge of surface water that may contain contaminants. Another meeting is planned for July, when next steps will be decided on.

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

Given that it is clearly in everyone’s interests for the UK fishing industry to modernise and, in so doing, to use good data to protect and grow fish stocks, why has the Minister allowed the Marine Management Organisation to relax its commitment to use a European Union grant that was specifically designed to support the sector for that purpose?

[George Eustice]

I do not accept that. The lion’s share of the European maritime and fisheries fund will be invested in selective net gear and used to support work relating to the discard ban.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Responsible drift netting plays an important role in the management of UK fish stocks, and has been a traditional part of fishing off the East Anglian coast for centuries. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the European Commissioner’s proposed blanket ban on drift netting, which will destroy what is left of the Lowestoft fleet, is not introduced?

[George Eustice]

We are aware of the issue, and we think that the targeting of species such as herring, bass and salmon by UK drift net fisheries is a far cry from the type of drift netting with which the previous ban sought to deal in the Mediterranean. We will be negotiating for the application of a risk-based regional approach to ensure that the right fisheries are monitored and required to take the appropriate litigation action when that is necessary, without the imposition of a blanket ban on drift netting.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions his Department has had with the UK Statistics Authority on the publication of official statistics of figures on Government spending on flood protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

10. What representations he has received on testing for trichinella in pigs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

First, I would like to declare an interest: my brother is the chairman of the British Lop Pig Society, and he has made representations to me about the time it takes some abattoirs to carry out the trichinella test, which we are investigating.

The Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for this policy area, formally consulted on the changes to trichinella testing in March 2014. Responses indicated broad support, but also that awareness of the changes is low.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to Brother Eustice.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Outdoor or free-range pigs are very prominent in Suffolk, where the industry is important, and it feels there has been a stitch-up by the FSA with the pig marketing association. I recognise the FSA is not my hon. Friend’s ministerial responsibility, but it is very important that free-range and organic pigs should not be literally the sacrificial pig to satisfy the European conditions that are being imposed.

[George Eustice]

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making. There had been some indication at some point that all pigs should be tested for trichinella. We have tended previously to test only boars and sows that are cull sows. However, the argument for testing only outdoor pigs as a compromise is that outdoor pigs are more susceptible to picking up this type of tapeworm.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effect of wild boar on the Forest of Dean and of proposals to contain their numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T3. I never thought it would be possible that in this day and age, in one of the richest countries in the world, I would see my local churches and charities going out collecting money for food banks. Will the Minister pay tribute to those kind and caring people? Is this not in stark contrast to this rotten Government, who shower gifts on the wealthy while they watch the poor go hungry?

[George Eustice]

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the great work that is done by the food banks. I regularly visit one in my own constituency that does very good work, and we should celebrate that. On the wider point about food prices, which the Department is responsible for looking at, it is important to note that in the year to the end of April, food price inflation was down to 0.5% and food prices have actually fallen in the past couple of months, so this is now significantly below average inflation in the economy.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The removal of notifiable disease status for contagious equine metritis and equine viral arteritis is causing much concern in the world-class blood stock industry in this country. Is the Minister aware that the export of horses from the UK to Hong Kong, India, Qatar, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries is likely to be hit because notifiable status is a prerequisite for horses in those countries?

[George Eustice]

I had the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, with a delegation from the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association. I understand the points they are making. Although those two diseases have a low impact and can be prevented through the application of the industry’s codes of practice, there could be some concerns about the impact on trade. That is why I have asked officials to look at the matter closely, to reassess the impacts on the trade, and to investigate alternative ways forward, such as burden sharing with the industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this closely and will take his views into account.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

T4. More than 2 million households in England and Wales are spending more than 5% of their household income on water bills. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what plans the Government have to give Ofwat more powers or to bring in measures that will require all water companies to tackle water bills for everybody, particularly for that 5% of households?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T6. With beef prices falling, beef farmers in my constituency are keen to ensure that the Department uses its good offices to increase public procurement of beef for the defence industry, national health service, schools and others. Will the Minister please look at that urgently?

[George Eustice]

I can confirm that Peter Bonfield is currently doing a piece of work for us on how we might improve the Government’s buying standard and have a more balanced approach to procurement so that price is not the only determinant. He is working on that and we expect to publish details of that plan later this year.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The collapse in beef prices is having a very damaging effect on the market. What steps can the Government take to ensure that where cheap imports from eastern Europe are for sale on supermarket shelves, shoppers know that they are cheap imports?

[George Eustice]

There is a requirement for country of origin labelling on all fresh meat. We are holding a summit later this summer to look at the problems experienced by the meat industry. It will consider those issues and how we might increase exports of beef.

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

T9. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) highlighted the importance of science-based policy making. Will the Minister tell the House how often the Marine Management Organisation’s scientific group has met since it was set up in 2010?

[George Eustice]

I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will get in touch with the hon. Lady and give her that information.

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—