Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to update the House on recent developments with regard to horsemeat and food fraud.

The events that we have seen unfold over the past few days in the UK and Europe are completely unacceptable. Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers have been buying products labelled beef, which turn out to contain horsemeat. The Government are taking urgent action with the independent Food Standards Agency, the industry and our European partners.

Let me turn first to the facts. On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products on the Irish market. The Irish study identified trace amounts of horse and pig DNA in the majority of the sample, but identified one product, a Tesco burger, where there was evidence of flagrant adulteration with horsemeat. The investigations in Ireland are ongoing.

On 16 January, in order to investigate the implications for the UK market, the FSA announced a four-point plan. That included telling implicated food businesses to test their processed beef products and the launch of a full scientific study of processed beef products on the UK market.

On 31 January, the Prison Service of England and Wales notified the Food Standards Agency that traces of pork DNA had been found in a selection of meat pies labelled as halal. Although trace contamination does not necessarily indicate fraudulent activity, any contamination is clearly of concern to faith communities. The affected products were quarantined and the contracts suspended.

On 4 February, the FSA announced that it had tested a consignment of frozen meat that was being stored at Freeza Meats in Northern Ireland for horse DNA. That consignment had been detained by the local authority in October 2012 because of labelling irregularities. The consignment is under the secure control of the local authority. None of the consignment has entered the food chain and so no recall is necessary. As part of the investigation, Newry and Mourne local authority has tested current products from Freeza Meats and neither horse nor pig DNA has been found in any of those products. The FSA is undertaking a detailed investigation, which includes following the supply chain of Freeza Meats and any other producers that are implicated.

On the evening of 6 February, Findus informed the Food Standards Agency that it had confirmation of horsemeat in frozen beef lasagne products. The lasagne were produced in Luxembourg by a French company, Comigel, with the meat supplied by another French company, Spanghero. The test results were supplied to the FSA on the morning of 7 February. The FSA is investigating the case urgently in liaison with the French authorities and the police. The FSA has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that the products recalled by Findus represent a food safety risk. The 7 February announcement that very significant amounts of horsemeat had been found in Findus lasagne moved the issue from one of trace contamination to one of either gross negligence or criminality.

On 8 February, Aldi withdrew two beef products after its tests found that they contained horsemeat. The products were supplied by Comigel, the same company that supplied Findus. Asda and Tesco also withdrew products from the same suppliers on a precautionary basis.

Food regulation is an area of European competence. Under the European legal framework, main responsibility for the safety and authenticity of food lies with those who produce, sell or provide it to the customer. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency was set up by the previous Government as an independent agency, and I have sought to respect its independence. It leads the operational response, and I am today updating the House on progress with its investigations and on the action I have been taking with the industry and European counterparts. I have made clear my expectation that food businesses do whatever is necessary to provide assurances to consumers that their products are what they say they are.

The Minister of State and the FSA met food retailers and suppliers on 4 February and made it clear that we expect the food industry to publish results of its own testing of meat products to provide a clearer public picture of standards in the food chain. In response to the Findus announcement of 7 February, the FSA asked in addition that all producers and retailers test all their processed beef products for the presence of horsemeat. On Saturday 9 February I called in the major food retailers, manufacturers and distributors to make clear my expectation that they verify and trace the source of all their processed beef products without delay.

At that meeting with the British Retail Consortium, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Meat Processors Association, the Federation of Wholesale Distributors, the Institute of Grocery Distribution and individual retailers, I made it clear that I expected to see from them the following: meaningful results from testing by the end of this week; more testing of products for horse along the supply chain and that the industry co-operates fully with the FSA on that; publication of industry test results every three months through the FSA; and that they let the FSA know as soon as they become aware of a potential problem in their products. I made it very clear that there must be openness and transparency in the system for the benefit of consumers, and that retailers and processors must deliver on those commitments to reassure their customers.

Let me reiterate: immediate testing of products will be done across the supply chain, including suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons as well as retailers. The FSA issued advice to public service providers on Sunday 11 February in advance of the working week. I also reiterate that the FSA has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that recalled products represent a food safety risk. The chief medical officer’s advice is that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk that it would cause any harm to health. People who have bought Findus beef lasagne products are advised not to eat them and return them to the shop they bought them from as a precaution.

The ultimate source of these incidents is still being investigated, but it is already clear that we are dealing with Europe-wide supply networks. I am taking action to ensure effective liaison with the European Commission and other member states, and I have been in touch with Irish Minister Simon Coveney on several occasions since 28 January. I have spoken to him twice again today and have also spoken to European Commissioner Borg, the French Minister Stéphane Le Foll and Romanian Minister Daniel Constantin. I emphasised the need for rapid and effective action, and I am grateful for the good co-operation there has already been.

I have agreed with Minister Coveney that there will be an urgent meeting with Commissioner Borg of Ministers from the member states affected. In addition we agreed that this issue will be on the agenda of the Agriculture Council on 25 February. At the moment this appears to be an issue of fraud and mislabelling, but if anything suggests the need for changes to surveillance and enforcement in the UK we will not hesitate to make those changes. Once we have established the full facts of the current incidents and identified where enforcement action can be taken, we will want to look at the lessons to be learned from this episode. I will make a further statement about that in due course.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I completely understand why people are so concerned about this issue. It is unacceptable that they have been deceived in this way. There appears to have been criminal activity in an attempt to defraud the consumer. The prime responsibility for dealing with this lies with retailers and food producers who need to demonstrate that they have taken all necessary actions to ensure the integrity of the food chain in this country. I am in daily contact with the FSA. This week I will be having further contact with European counterparts and I will be meeting the food industry again, together with the FSA, tomorrow. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Paterson]

You would not think that we had inherited Labour’s system would you, Mr Deputy Speaker? You really wouldn’t. I always admire the hon. Lady—she really has a nerve.

This issue is a European competence. As agreed by her Government, the independent Food Standards Agency was set up and we have followed their policy of respecting that independence. Today, I talked to its chairman, Lord Rooker, whom she knows well, and he agreed that we had respected its independence. In the early stages of this history, this was an issue of trace DNA in an Irish abattoir. Once it came to the Findus case, where there was a significant volume of horse material, it took on a whole new dimension. He agreed that it was then appropriate that the Secretary of State should become publicly involved, as I have been in recent days. The hon. Lady is critical of the FSA’s survey—on which I wish it well. I raised it with the noble Lord this afternoon, and he agreed that April was the intended end date for these results, but that he could possibly publish some of them as he works through.

The hon. Lady completely misses the point that the retailers are responsible for the quality and content of their food. That is laid down in European law. Her Government passed a statutory instrument in 2002. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Lady shouting. She must understand that under the current arrangements it is for retailers to decide. She has completely missed the point that they are responsible for testing, they are responsible for the integrity of their food and they are responsible to their customers. They have a massive self-interest in this, because obviously they want their customers to come back. She will be pleased to hear that we had a most satisfactory meeting on Saturday, and they will be bringing forward meaningful results by the end of this week.

The hon. Lady went on a bit about the police. [Interruption.] I agree with my hon. Friends that she went on and on about the police. This is a serious issue, and the FSA has raised it with the Metropolitan police, but the hon. Lady must understand that until there is a criminal action in this country, they cannot take action. However, the FSA has been in touch with Europol, because it does look as though there have been criminal cases on the continent.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Irish test. I have had a conversation this afternoon with Minister Coveney. We have agreed that there will be protocol between our two independent agencies to agree testing equivalents and to work extremely closely together, because our two food industries so often work in co-operation on either side of the Irish sea.

The hon. Lady mentioned horses. Today, Lord Rooker will announce that further to our recent announcement that all horses slaughtered in this country will be tested for bute, no carcase will be released until it has been proven positive.

Finally, the advice on food is very simple. I have been completely consistent. It must have been in an interview and I think she mis-heard the second part of a sentence when I was speaking. I have been absolutely clear. The independent agency that gives professional advice is the Food Standards Agency. I, the hon. Lady, hon. Members and the public should follow its advice. As long as products are free for sale and have not been recommended for withdrawal by the FSA, they are safe for human consumption. I recommend that she follows the advice of the independent agency that her Government set up.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Is it not absolutely right that this is a European problem that requires a European solution? This contaminated meat should never have entered the UK food chain. It now appears that the Romanian authorities did not do the product and labelling checks before the contaminated food left Romanian shores. Will my right hon. Friend please assure us that he will confirm, with both the Commission and the Romanian Minister, that these product checks are in place and that no further consignment should be admitted into this country until we know it is as marked on the label? Will he also look to the European food labelling regulations, articles 7 and 8, that permit precautionary temporary measures to be put in place to save our retailers from this expense? Will he also ask the FSA why it did not commence inspections when it was told that the Irish FSA was doing so in November last year?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for her question. Commissioner Borg made it clear to me today that there were no grounds for banning imports on mislabelling or fraud, and that that could happen only if human safety might be imperilled. I have also spoken to Minister Constantin in Romania, who was very emphatic on this point—we have to be fair to all countries involved. He made it quite clear to me—I am happy to share this with the House—that the two main named abattoirs, one of which only deals with horsemeat, shipped products that were correctly labelled. Horsemeat was shipped and it was labelled as horsemeat. I therefore think that this case has some distance further to travel, and we should not jump to conclusions, which is why I am pleased that my discussions with Minister Coveney have led to an agreement that the Agriculture Ministers of the half dozen countries concerned will meet. We all want to get to the bottom of this.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that there is no evidence of criminal activity in this country, but may I remind him that inaccurate labelling is illegal? Why has it taken him more than three weeks to summon the retailers and four weeks to come to the House? Given that the highly respected Chair of the Select Committee said on the “Today” programme on Friday that she would not eat processed beef products, why is he still recommending that people do?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that inaccurate labelling is an offence. At the moment, we have to establish exactly what is in these materials and who is responsible for the label. In the Findus case, that material has been withdrawn.

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

We have the red tractor and other farm assurance schemes that guarantee that meat from those sources is guaranteed through to processed product. May I urge the Secretary of State to urge people to eat that type of meat, which is completely traceable? Finally, Europe has been far too lax on this type of meat processing for many years, so we need a tightening up across the whole of Europe in order to know exactly what we are eating.

[Mr Paterson]

I am entirely happy to recommend to all consumers in this country that they buy good British products in which they can have faith. We have extraordinarily rigorous processes for traceability and production systems, so I have total confidence in British products and strongly recommend them to the British consumer.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why companies such as Tesco can consistently reject entire consignments of our farmers’ fruit and veg for being misshapen—at the cost of the farmer—yet have not focused the same attention on processed meat in their own lines, because it is not at the front of the freezer and does not affect the appearance? Will he ensure that in future the FSA has in perpetuity statutory powers to instruct retailers to carry out tests on their entire product lines consistent with the volume of product being shifted over the year?

[Mr Paterson]

Unlike the last Government, we have set up a groceries adjudicator, which answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On the second one, he will be pleased to hear that at Saturday’s meeting we agreed that retailers would carry out this testing, which will have meaningful results by the end of the week. Further to that, however, I want these results published on a regular basis—every three months.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I express my entire confidence in how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with this issue? Does it not raise a further point, however, which is that British farmers are handicapped when trying to compete with food producers from countries that not only do not carry out the appropriate checks, but have much lower animal welfare standards than we do?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right. It is a scandal that, despite our egg producers last year conforming to the enriched cages directive, and despite the fact that again this year we were 100% up because we were the first out of the traps to end tethering, some major European countries have still not conformed. I raised that point with Commissioner Borg at our last Council meeting and wrote to him about it last week.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that cuts to the FSA and the introduction of the self-regulatory hazard analysis and critical control points system will not compromise, and never has compromised, meat hygiene inspections and the ability to ensure that meat is legal and safe?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady, having read out a Whips’ handout, has unwittingly touched on an incredibly important question. The whole issue concerns a paper-based system that places too much faith in the accuracy of the paper recording what might be in the pallet or consignment, so she is absolutely right to raise the question of testing. I briefly discussed this point with Commissioner Borg today and have discussed it with the noble Lord Rooker. I would like to see more random testing of products halfway through the process, so she is on the button—it is a most important point.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that prime responsibility must lie with the retailers, and that retailers should use some of their vast profits to ensure product quality and guarantee that their products are exactly what they say they are?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Consumers must have faith in the products provided by the retailers. It is the retailers’ responsibility to present consumers with goods that are wholesome, of quality and conform to the label. It is important that the retailers get out there and sell their systems and products in a way that keeps the faith of the consumer.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that Findus still has serious questions to answer. In particular, exactly when did the company have a reasonable suspicion that the supply chain was contaminated and who took the decision not to enact an immediate product recall? Ultimate responsibility lies with the man at the top—in this case, Manhattan-based private equity investor Dale Morrison. Does he agree that it is shameful that he has not flown to the UK immediately to tackle this problem or issued a word of contrition?

[Mr Paterson]

I talked to the UK chief executive of Findus on Saturday afternoon, but I think we have to be cautious about what we say, because I understand that Findus might launch legal proceedings against Comigel and possibly Spanghero. The important point, however, is that I made it clear at our meeting on Saturday that from now on, the minute that any food business has evidence that there might be something untoward in a product or that something might not conform, it must tell the FSA immediately, and that as soon as that evidence is corroborated by a scientifically valid laboratory test, the product should be withdrawn very publicly. I made it clear to the retailers that I would strongly support any withdrawal on those grounds.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisive action in this matter. Quite rightly, his priority should be the safety of consumers and restoring confidence in our great British food industry. He knows, however, that the national equine database was closed down last December. What assessment has he made of the impact of that closure on the Department’s ability to keep track of horses in the UK, and is he confident that the current systems available to him enable his Department to keep a track on equine movements and locations?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments. She is right to raise the issue of equine databases. We have absolute confidence that we have access to all the information contained in the various ones around the country, and we are also very clear that the significant statement today by the noble Lord Rooker—that every single horse carcase will be held until it is proved clear—will be of great reassurance to the British consumer.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Highly processed foods of this kind are more likely to form a larger part of the diets of low-income families—of which there are far too many in Newcastle thanks to this Government’s actions. Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that when someone in Blakelaw buys a burger, they need to research the entire supply chain, rather than relying on the Government and the Secretary of State?

[Mr Paterson]

This is a serious misunderstanding. The hon. Lady must understand that under this system it is the retailers who are responsible. It is for the retailers to get out there and show their customers that their processed beef products are sound, that they have increased random testing and that these products are completely clear. It is for the retailers to prove that they can reassure their customers.

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

Illegal meat trading is one of the most profitable criminal activities, with limited penalties. Replacing dear beef with cheap horsemeat enables huge profits to be made. Does the Secretary of State agree that the active involvement of Europol is essential to break up the complex criminal food chains that have been set up to take advantage of our consumers?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, there is significant money to be made from this criminal activity. It is a fraud on the public. It is absolutely wrong that a British consumer should go to a retail outlet and buy a product marked “processed beef” and find later that it contains horsemeat. It is a straight fraud. It is criminal activity. We are absolutely determined to bear down on it, working with our European partners to stop it, and I am delighted that the FSA is working closely with Europol.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, produces first-class meat products, but this meat scandal has seriously damaged public confidence in the safety of our food and is depressing an industry that is already struggling because of weather conditions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to restore confidence is to find out who has engaged in this illegal activity, put them out of business and bring them before the courts?

[Mr Paterson]

I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. This is a fraud on the public. It is wrong for them to be presented with a product and find out later that it is not what is claimed. There is no health issue here; this is an issue of fraud and labelling. With reference to his previous question, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to get the perpetrators—these criminals—and stop this practice.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Irish Food Safety Authority has been ahead of the Food Standards Agency every step of the way. The people I am concerned about are the British beef producers. Nobody seems to care about them. They have seen their products replaced by poor fakes. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it and how are these poor, besmirched people going to get their market share back?

[Mr Paterson]

I would like to correct my hon. Friend a little. The reason the Irish agency picked up this issue in the Irish plant was that it had local intelligence that there was a problem. That is why it did a random check —I cleared that with Minister Coveney today. As far as I am concerned, my hon. Friend will find no stauncher supporter of British beef than the Secretary of State standing before him. We have splendid cattle, rigorous traceability systems, strictly run abattoirs and a splendid finished product.

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

I think we have all been shocked by these unacceptable failures in our food supply chain. Does the Secretary of State agree that one way we can be absolutely sure what is on our plates is to buy Scotch beef—quality assured and fully traceable—preferably from a local butcher, and not least that which is produced in Banff and Buchan?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I talked to her Minister, Richard Lochhead, only yesterday. She may be a great advocate of locally produced Scottish beef, and I may be a great advocate of British beef—or Shropshire beef—but she is absolutely right that British consumers should have faith in locally produced food.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad to know that many of us want to know whether the European Commission is being held accountable under the EU’s food and labelling regulations, which include specific notification of the species of the animal used in food. Will he assure us that all necessary actions and discussions are being pursued with Commissioner Borg to ensure that those with the legal obligations to audit these matters—including the directorate, under him, of the food and veterinary office—comply with EU standards?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot-on to recognise the key role of the Commissioner, as this is a European competence, and that is why I spoke to him today. I am pleased to record that he was extraordinarily co-operative. We are going to fix up a meeting—at very short notice—with him and the key Agriculture Ministers some time this week. The point my hon. Friend raises is definitely one that I will make clear to the Commissioner at that meeting.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Even allowing for the Secretary of State’s rather laid-back approach, does he not think it might have been smarter to advise that guidance be issued to schools and hospitals a little earlier than 10 o’clock last night?

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with my demeanour. I am as active as I think he will find is necessary on this issue, having been at it for many, many days now. More importantly, the advice that the FSA has given to suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons—it is exactly the same as that given to retailers—is clear. Unless the FSA recommends that a product be withdrawn, the public, schoolchildren, prisoners and those in hospitals should have faith in the product.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Phenylbutazone is an incredibly common, but useful drug to all horse owners. The presence of a verifiable, accurate and up-to-date horse passport is no guarantee whatever that a horse has not been given bute. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to check that a carcase is bute-free is to test it?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about that. That is why the FSA has today announced the new regime. Not only are all carcases being tested, but from today, not one carcase will be released until it is proven to be clear.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that retailers and food processors have prime responsibility for the content of their products. Nevertheless, the public feel that the Government have a responsibility to ensure enforcement of accurate labelling. His Government did away with responsibility for labelling of food content back in 2010. Can he now explain how it is shared between the FSA, his Department and the Department of Health, whether he thinks that is satisfactory and what improvements he thinks need to be made?

[Mr Paterson]

Labour Members have got a nerve! For 13 years, year after year, Conservative Members brought forward labelling Bills and were not backed by Labour Whips. We are the ones who are getting labelling sharpened up; Labour did nothing at all.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I offer my right hon. Friend my full support? Is this not an opportunity for patriotic purchasing, not only by buying Scottish products, but by buying British products? If consumers want to be confident in the provenance of food, they should buy local, local, local.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend has a good point. People are quite right to have great faith in their local suppliers—transport times are reduced, there is clear traceability and there will be clear local knowledge. I repeat: we have great local producers, rigorous traceability systems and stringent production systems, and we end up with superb quality.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State professes great concern about what is in our meat and the importance of accurate food labelling, yet according to press reports, the UK is trying to get an exemption from EU regulations that would limit to below 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up minced meat. Does that not completely fly in the face of what he has tried to tell the House today?

[Mr Paterson]

No, we operate on professional advice.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has told us that food regulation is an area of European competence. Some of us may think it an area of European incompetence. As a result of European failures, it seems that my constituents are getting disgusting food—whether or not it is a health risk, it is revolting. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consider emergency legislation, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, to allow us to stop importing disgusting food.

[Mr Paterson]

I look forward to sitting down with my hon. Friend and coming up with a legal definition of “disgusting food”. Let me be more positive and refer to my earlier replies: there is splendid food grown in my hon. Friend’s part of England, and I would strongly recommend his constituents to buy local.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State have confidence in the food chain, and is he confident that the imported food, not just meat, sold in our shops is safe to eat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady uses the term “food chain”. What we have seen in recent days is the extraordinary complexity involved, and I am trying to get away from the expression “food chain”. It is an extraordinary network—an amazing kaleidoscopic variety of factories and suppliers all working together. It is a real network, and what is quite clear in this case is that there has to be more rigorous and more random testing. I have faith in the advice of the independent Food Standards Agency, but down the road, and picking up on the previous question, within the constraints we work under, I would like to see more random testing.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the speedy, effective, thorough and robust way in which he has handled this issue. My local butcher in Braintree clearly labels its products so I know what I am buying and where it came from. I like to support our local farmers and buy local. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging retailers to have better and clear labelling, so consumers know what exactly is in the products they buy and where they come from?

[Mr Paterson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and he will be delighted to hear that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is in her place next to me on the Front Bench, is working on that very issue as we speak.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is just leaving the Chamber, was absolutely right that our near neighbour, Ireland, was ahead of the game in dealing with this issue. What can the Secretary of State learn from his Irish counterparts? On the issue of international criminality, is he confident that we have enough resources and surveillance at our ports of entry?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has, I think, missed the point. The Irish had local intelligence of a local problem in Ireland, which is why random testing was done in Ireland. On his other question, I have discussed the issue with the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, and she is clear that, with her organisation having made some sensible efficiencies, she can certainly deliver everything we ask.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Given that the problem is with international processors, can the Secretary of State reassure us that any change in legislation or regulation will not fall on the shoulders of small independent butchers and retailers?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There has been a lot of acknowledgement around the House about the benefits of local production, but sadly in recent years we have seen the closure of a large number of small local abattoirs. Such abattoirs are of real value—there are animal welfare and food-quality benefits—so we should be judicious in any moves we make and value small country abattoirs.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

If my constituents are mis-sold a range of products, they will have rights. Does the Secretary of State believe that they should have rights if they are mis-sold food products?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that of course people have a right to take their products back. What we clearly agreed with the retailers on Saturday was that if any product has been recalled, any consumer has the right to take that product back to the retailer and get a full refund.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an obvious step we could take now is to ensure that the £2 billion or so we spend each year on food for schools and hospitals is used to support our own British farmers, as is done in many other countries in Europe—a policy that our party supported vociferously when it was in opposition?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Significant sums of public money are spent on procurement and we should ensure, if we can within the rules, that it goes in the direction of British producers.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

What was the exact date on which the Secretary of State became aware that there was a problem with horsemeat in the food chain? I want the exact date, please.

[Mr Paterson]

We were told about it and it became public knowledge on the day the announcement was made—on 15 January. This was an Irish issue and it was for the Irish to make the announcement.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

If the moratorium on EU meat products cannot be enforced under EU rules, how does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that more contaminated products are not sold in the UK?

[Mr Paterson]

I would not use the word “contaminated”; these products are “adulterated”. This is a case of fraud and mis-labelling; there is no evidence at all that these products are in any way a threat to human health. I have discussed this with Commissioner Borg today, and there is absolutely no reason under the current arrangements of European law to provide a basis for a ban. Should we find a product that is injurious to human health, we would obviously act very rapidly. The Commissioner agreed that in those circumstances we would put out a notice around Europe and all take unilateral action.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

We would all dearly like to eat anything marked with a red tractor or a Scottish saltire, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, what families eat depends on the household budget. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the retailers are responsible for what is sold, but he is responsible for the pace at which this moves forward. We are losing confidence in what people are buying, and if we do not move forward quickly, it will cause reputational damage to the agricultural industry. Will he move this on at a greater pace, and what has he done in respect of speaking to colleagues in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this needs resolving fast. I do not think any greater unity of intent could be seen than in my conversations today. Minister Le Foll from France was emphatic: the moment I suggested the meeting, he was determined to come along. We are quite clear that we all have an alliance of interest in resolving this issue as fast as possible. The hon. Gentleman is right that this issue could damage confidence, but I stress again that this is a case of fraud and mis-labelling: it is not a problem with food safety.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I very much welcome the wider debate about where our food comes from. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the increased popularity of shop local campaigns, local food co-operatives and farmers’ markets, all of which are booming in my constituency?

[Mr Paterson]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I think shopping local is good: it is good for animal welfare, good for food quality and good for local employment. I strongly support the initiatives my hon. Friend mentions.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am astounded that the Secretary of State thinks that this is a mis-labelling issue, given that some beef products have not even come into contact with a cow—except perhaps sharing a field with one at some time. I am appalled when he says that there is not even a health issue. Should he not take responsibility for, and take more seriously, the potential for contamination of the human food chain by the drug bute, which is not fit for human consumption?

[Mr Paterson]

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is a case of mis-labelling and fraud; it is not a case of food safety. The noble Lord Rooker said today that, sadly, 20,000 people go to hospital because of a food-related complaint and, tragically, something like 500 die, yet he does not know of a single individual whose health has been affected by the importation of these products. I think hon. Members must get this in perspective. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bute, but I draw his attention to today’s advice from the chief medical officer, who said:

“It’s understandable that people will be concerned, but it is important to emphasise that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it would cause any harm to health”.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Front Benchers are demonstrating a degree of opportunism, given that we are operating under a system that we inherited from them? Will he confirm that no testing for horsemeat in food took place during the last seven years of the Labour Administration?

[Mr Paterson]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that that question threw the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) when she was on Andrew Neil’s programme yesterday.

The important point that my hon. Friend has made is that the Food Standards Agency is rightly targeting its efforts on problems that might be prejudicial to health. Until the case in Ireland came up, very recently, there had not been a problem with horsemeat. This is a very recent evolution, and until now the FSA has rightly been concentrating all its efforts on health problems.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Although the issue of food safety in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, this Government had responsibility during the discussions that were held with the European Commission on Scotland’s behalf. When the Secretary of State next speaks to the Scottish Agriculture Minister, will he pass on the view of the Scottish people that it is not good enough simply to test products that are manufactured in Scotland, and that goods that are retailed in Scotland must be tested as well? Do not consumers in Scotland deserve the same protection as people in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Paterson]

As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, I had a very constructive conversation yesterday with Richard Lochhead, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, and he wrote me a letter today. We will work together closely, and I will include him in discussions with the FSA. However, the hon. Gentleman, like some of his colleagues, has missed the point. The ultimate arbiters when it comes to the safety, quality and integrity of food products are the retailers. The hon. Gentleman must get his head around the fact that it is the retailers who are ultimately responsible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

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

[Mr Paterson]

Transparency is essential. On Saturday, we agreed that further tests would continue, and that the FSA would publish the results every three months in order to give confidence to the consumer. Ensuring that consumers go to shops and buy British goods is absolutely key.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Given the concerns about horsemeat, and given the announcement at the end of January that pork DNA had been found in pies that were supposed to be halal, many of my constituents are naturally anxious about the classification of halal meat. Can the Secretary of State tell us what meetings he has had with halal certification organisations, and can he reassure my constituents that meat that is labelled halal is indeed halal?

[Mr Paterson]

That is an important point. Many faith groups would be shocked to find that they had bought inappropriate material. This is an operational matter, which is being taken up by the FSA.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

If negligent, incompetent or, indeed, criminal producers are happy to contaminate products with horsemeat, with what else would they be prepared to cut those products? Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that products have also been tested for non-meat adulterants?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a very important question. We have no evidence that any other meat product is being used to adulterate bovine, or processed bovine, products.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has told us that this is an issue of fraud and mislabelling, but how can he be sure, given that the random testing seems to have involved only about 1.5% of horse carcases? How can he state so categorically that there is no health issue? If more comprehensive testing by the FSA proves that there is a health issue, will he then act unilaterally?

[Mr Paterson]

I think I have made clear twice that from now on all horse carcases will be tested, and that none will be released until they are proved to be clear.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My constituents were horrified to hear of the circuitous route taken by some of the contents of everyday products before they arrive on the shop shelves. The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the high quality of British beef and other products. Is he able to restrict the import of foreign products, or is he himself restricted by European legislation?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to make clear that the only grounds on which we could talk to the Commission about a ban on the import of any product would relate to food safety, and to content that might be injurious to human health. Commissioner Borg has made clear that if we did come across a product that could present a risk to food safety, he would react very rapidly.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his handling of this crisis, which has contrasted sharply with the way in which it has been handled by the FSA. When the dust has settled, will he conduct an inquiry into why the FSA’s intelligence systems failed to identify the extensive prevalence of horsemeat in processed and ready-made meals in this country?

[Mr Paterson]

I think that a system can always be improved. We inherited the current system from the last Government. I have no doubt that there will be lessons to be learnt from this episode, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the area in which I am most interested in pursuing real progress is the introduction of random testing. Too much is taken for granted under the present system. Too often, although the paperwork is supposed to describe what is on the pallet or the truck, it goes through the system and no one actually checks. I think that we could make a massive improvement within the current constraints of European competence and all the other arrangements, but I think that random testing would make a real difference. I am pleased that Lord Rooker was so sympathetic to that idea today, as was Commissioner Borg.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

My constituency contains the abattoir of Woodhead Bros Meat Bros Co., in Colne. Woodhead, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morrisons supermarket, benefited from a £21 million investment last year and employs more than 700 people. All Morrisons’ meat and mince is 100% British-sourced. It uses its own abattoirs and maintains very high standards, as I have seen every time I have visited Woodhead Bros. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising retailers such as Morrisons which do the right thing and go the extra mile to ensure that their products are correct?

[Mr Paterson]

I have to admire the way in which Morrisons managed to penetrate every possible news outlet in order to promote its products.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I understand the technical definition, but to many of my constituents a supposed beef product that is actually horse represents a contamination.

May I pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether, if the meat had come from outside the European Union, we would now be looking at an import ban?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a good question. I assume that my hon. Friend means that the product was processed within the European Union. We should not forget that the products withdrawn by Findus were eventually processed in Luxembourg from meat which, we understand, went to Castelnaudary in France and possibly came from Romania, and that they therefore counted as European Union products. Under the existing system, a product from Comigel in Luxembourg would have to present a health risk to enable me to approach Commissioner Borg to request an import ban.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, who cannot act freely because his actions are circumscribed by the European Union. What else does he think the European Commissioner should be doing? It seems that the Commissioner does not have much of a sense of urgency in this regard. This is criminal fraud, and we know that a great deal of criminal fraud is endemic throughout the European Union. Why is the Commissioner not taking more action more quickly?

[Mr Paterson]

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to address that question directly to the Commissioner. All I can say is that the Commissioner could not have been more co-operative when I rang him today. I look forward to meeting him soon this week—certainly before the end of the week—and I shall certainly raise with him that issue of urgency.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Through the extensive use of their loyalty card schemes, the big supermarkets have a very good idea about which individual consumers are buying which beef—horse—products. At the recent summit that he held, did my right hon. Friend get any indication from the big supermarkets that they would use direct promotion to contact individual consumers, first to say sorry, secondly to restore confidence, and thirdly to offer compensation to those who have brought these products in the recent past?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said in my replies to Opposition Members, it is for the retailers to get their message across and take the necessary steps to ensure the validity and integrity of their product. It is for the retailers to communicate with their consumers to ensure that they come back.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I applaud the Secretary of State’s robust approach to eating British food; that is something that everyone in the House will agree with. I am also impressed that he has referred to random testing. Does he think that random testing should be applied to all steps of the food chain? That is an important issue that we need to discuss.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is exactly what I am thinking of. I repeat that I am concerned that the system as currently conceived is all based on trust. A product is certified at the beginning of the process with a certificate or a piece of paper to state that such and such a pallet contains such and such a product, and it then goes through the system based completely on trust. I would like to have random testing at every stage, so that everyone could be kept on their toes. That could deliver considerable benefits.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Consumer confidence is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious questions being asked about the conduct of many of our EU neighbours illustrate the urgency of implementing the display of full product origins on food labels?

[Mr Paterson]

I am very keen on more accurate labelling—the more information the better—and that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is working on.

Point of Order

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answering my question earlier, I fear that the Secretary of State might have given incorrect information. I am sure that I heard him say that he spoke to the chief executive of Findus UK on Saturday, but my understanding is that there is not currently a chief exec of the company. He left last December, hence my point about the executive chairman in New York. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State found out who was masquerading as the chief executive, if that is possible.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that I spoke to Mr Leendert den Hollander. Perhaps I have inadvertently misled the House and given him the wrong title, but that was his name.

[Mr Watson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that that person works for a completely different company—namely, Young’s Seafood.

Horsemeat and Contaminated Food

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Written Statements

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

Investigations are currently going on into a number of incidents of processed beef products containing undeclared horsemeat. These investigations are being led by the independent Food Standards Agency in liaison with authorities in other European countries and the police. The Food Standards Agency has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that the products in question represent a food safety risk.

Food fraud is completely unacceptable. Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers have been buying products labelled beef, but which turn out to be horse. I am determined that we get to the bottom of this and that any wrongdoing is prosecuted.

I met major retailers, manufacturers and distributors on 9 February to agree a clear plan of action to deal with this problem. Producers and retailers are testing their processed beef products for the presence of horsemeat and I made it clear I expected to see meaningful results from this testing by the end of this week. We also agreed that more testing of products for horse needs to be done along the supply chain.

Consumers can be confident that we will establish how this has happened and will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the integrity of the food chain in this country.

I will be making an oral statement to the House on these issues later today.

Irresponsible Dog Ownership

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce a package of measures to tackle welfare and irresponsible dog ownership on which DEFRA consulted last year.

In that consultation from April to June, we put forward a number of possible measures to encourage more responsible behaviour and deal with the consequences that irresponsible dog ownership has on everyone else. There was an overwhelming reaction to the consultation, with over 27,000 responses. I am today publishing the results of the consultation, including the proposed way forward and have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Following the results of an earlier consultation in 2010, the 2012 consultation sought views on four specific proposals:

A requirement that dogs are microchipped with details of the owner.

A change in the criminal law in section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to extend the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private property.

Allow owners of dogs seized as suspected dangerous dogs or prohibited types to retain possession of their dogs until the outcome of court proceedings.

Increase the application fee for prohibited dogs to be placed on the index of exempted dogs

Microchipping of all dogs

The responses to the consultation show there is overwhelming support, from some 96% of respondents, for some form of compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Microchipping makes a clear link between a dog and its owner. Over 100,000 dogs either stray, are lost or stolen each year with many having to be kept in kennels before being re-homed. Having a microchip means they can be reunited quickly with their owners, reducing the stress for dog and owner alike. It will also lead to substantial savings for local authorities and welfare charities who spend some £57 million a year on kennelling costs and will mean that fewer dogs are destroyed. Some 6,000 dogs have to be put down each year, because their owner cannot be found.

We have listened to the views of those who responded to the consultation particularly on the question of practicality for owners and those dealing with stray or lost dogs. Only 10% favoured the option of microchipping puppies. The 10 to 12-year delay before all dogs would be microchipped is considered too long to wait to get the benefits and the police and others did not feel it was practical.

So we will introduce regulations to require the microchipping of all dogs in England from 6 April 2016. From that date owners will need to have their dog microchipped and registered on one of the authorised commercial databases available; and they will have to register the details of any new owner before they sell or give the dog away. Owners will be required to keep their contact details up to date on the microchip databases.

DEFRA is now working with database providers and microchip suppliers to ensure minimum standards of service for commercial databases and standards of microchips, and that there is updated implantation guidance and training available as well as a one-stop 24-hour enquiry point for microchipped lost and found dogs.

I wish to thank the Dogs Trust for their very generous support which means a free microchip will be available for all unchipped dogs throughout England. The Government are working with the Dogs Trust to ensure that free microchips will be offered by the Dogs Trust to local authorities, housing associations and veterinary surgeries. A number of other animal welfare charities are offering free microchipping at their centres including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross.

We expect there to be a high compliance rate with the microchipping requirement.

Amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act

Tackling dangerous and out of control dogs was an important part of the measures put forward by DEFRA last year. The Government have decided to toughen up the existing law. The ban on owning or selling some types of dogs bred for fighting will remain for public safety reasons. We agree with advice from the police that the ban on the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina and Fila Braziliero should remain in place to protect the public and to help deal with potentially dangerous dogs. However, we also accept that any dog can become dangerous and that owners are ultimately responsible for the behaviour of their dogs. The Government’s approach is one of tackling both deed and breed.

Incidents involving dangerous dogs are on the rise, and it is wrong that the police cannot investigate offences and put them forward for prosecution simply because a dog attack occurred on private property. Eight children and six adults have been killed in dog attacks since 2005, with many of these attacks taking place in the home; five of the victims were children under the age of four years. Concerns have also been raised about dog attacks on postal workers and health visitors and social workers during home visits. People just doing their job should not be subject to dog attacks. The public agree. The consultation has shown wide support for the proposal to extend the scope of the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to all places, including private property. Extending the law will help give protection both to children in their homes, and to people who have to visit private properties such as healthcare, postal and utility workers. Postal workers in particular have suffered some terrible attacks, and the proposed change to the 1991 Act will close the loophole that has meant these attacks go unpunished. However, the proposed extension to the criminal law will not provide protection to trespassers who have entered a private property whom the householder believes has unlawful intentions. DEFRA will bring forward amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as soon as parliamentary time permits to effect this change in the law.

The Government are also concerned to ensure that irresponsible dog ownership is tackled before a serious incident has occurred. As well as the ban on certain breeds of fighting dog, DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office and other authorities to introduce new powers to help frontline professionals tackle anti- social behaviour involving dogs. The measures proposed in the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill published on 13 December 2012 will provide a set of flexible, effective tools and powers to enable police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of anti-social behaviour including dog-related incidents.

Seizure and kennelling of suspected dangerous dogs

To ensure the welfare of suspected prohibited dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings and to ease the substantial costs to the police service, Government have also decided that it should no longer be necessary for the police to seize and kennel such dogs pending the outcome of court proceedings where the police do not consider the dog presents a risk to the public. The police will have discretion to release a suspected prohibited dog where they are completely satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner. They will be allowed to put extra restrictions on the owner, for example requiring the dog to be muzzled and on a lead when in public. These changes will be made by way of amendments to the exemption scheme and can be made through secondary legislation.

We consider that allowing suspected prohibited dogs to be exempted from seizure in these circumstances strikes the right balance between protecting the public from such potentially dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after dogs are not unnecessarily removed from their homes.

Dangerous dogs index fee

We propose to raise the fee payable by the owner for placing prohibited dogs on the index of exempted dogs to £77 plus VAT from the level that was set in 1997 (£20 plus VAT), to reflect the costs involved in administering these dogs for their lifetime better and thereby reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

Other measures to address irresponsible dog ownership

Irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem and there is no single solution. The primary responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept under proper control must rest with individual owners who should only acquire a dog if they are prepared to look after it properly and make sure that it does not become a nuisance or a danger to others. A key concern of Government is the ease with which it is possible to buy a dog or other pet over the internet. There is a rise in the trend for pets to be advertised for sale in this way, and DEFRA is working closely with the animal welfare charities to develop codes of conduct for website operators and to provide guidance for buyers on the potential pitfalls of buying pets in this way. We look forward to co-operation from the industry to the benefit of all.

We consider that education also has a significant role to play in reducing the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership. Government have provided funding of £50,000 shared between the RSPCA, Battersea Cats and Dogs Home and the Dogs Trust to foster innovative local community projects to encourage responsible dog ownership in areas where there are high instances of dog-related problems. The funding was provided on the basis that the interventions will be carefully evaluated and the learning disseminated to help others working with local communities including local authorities. That evaluation is underway. Funding has been given to the Association of Chief Police Officers to support the training that they provide for officers with knowledge of dog control legislation in order to ensure that there is a centre for such expertise in every police force.

Overall this is a practical and balanced package of measures which encourages responsible dog ownership and supports local communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to safeguard native tree species from the threat of disease.

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

Last October I introduced a ban on the movement of ash trees, and as recently as last week I introduced tighter controls which require notification by importers of consignments of certain oaks, sweet chestnuts and plane trees, allowing plant health inspectors to target inspections.

I instructed Professor Ian Boyd to convene the independent taskforce on tree and plant health, chaired by Professor Chris Gilligan. I welcome its interim recommendations, which presented radical ideas to safeguard Britain’s trees from disease, and I keenly await its final report, which will be published in the spring along with the updated Chalara control plan.

[Caroline Nokes]

Hillier Nurseries, which is in my constituency, is the United Kingdom’s leading grower of trees, and one of the largest growers in Europe. Last year it supplied trees to the Olympic park. It is imperative for the control plan for ash dieback and other tree diseases to be robust and responsive, but what reassurance can the Secretary of State give the company that the Government will support a programme involving the breeding of disease-resistant trees?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend has asked exactly the right question. We know from scientific evidence that Chalara cannot be eradicated, but that there is likely to be a percentage of resistant trees. I have asked DEFRA’s chief scientist, Professor Ian Boyd, to work with experts in genetics, as a priority, to establish the best ways of identifying and developing the sources of that resistance. He began his work in December. We are also working closely with industry—including splendid companies like the one in my hon. Friend’s constituency—on an updated version of the Chalara control plan, to be published at the end of March.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The truth is that the Forestry Commission is in absolute chaos. A total of 530 posts have been lost, 60 of them—60!—in forest research. The Secretary of State has the gall to stand at that Dispatch Box and act as if the world is all right and what he is saying has put everything in order. That is not the case, and he needs to get a grip.

[Mr Paterson]

I think that there may have been a question lurking in the humbug somewhere. The fact is that we have enormously increased research on plant diseases. I pay tribute to all those in the Forestry Commission and the DEFRA agencies who conducted a totally unprecedented survey of the whole United Kingdom—2,500 pieces of land, each 10 kilometres square—and analysed where the disease had come from. We know that, sadly, it has blown in and that there is a genetic strain, and we will work with companies such as Hillier’s to find it.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

16. What role does my right hon. Friend think the public can play, not only in the response to ash dieback but in our wider approach to tree health?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his much more constructive question. The public can play a key role. We know that there is a genetic strain that is resistant; we have seen it in Denmark and Holland. Organisations such as the Woodland Trust can play a vital part in helping us to identify the trees that are resistant so that we can start to breed from them.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State may know of my interest as chair of the John Clare Trust, which runs a campaign called Every Child’s Right to the English Countryside. The likelihood of any child’s visiting any green space is halved in a generation. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), we need an army of people to go out into our forests and woods, to act as detectors of disease, and to help us to fight it. We need that army of people to go into the country’s green spaces and act in the same way as the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who are good at noticing any decline in the bird population.

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the way in which we will confront some of these diseases. As I have said, a number of trees are resistant, and it would be enormously helpful if the public became involved in searching for them. There are some 80 million ash trees in the country; officials cannot spot them all, but the public can, and that could be immensely beneficial. I pay tribute to the members of the public who paid a key role during the week in which we surveyed the entire United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

4. How many properties were protected from the recent flooding by flood defence schemes.

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

The Environment Agency estimates that more than 22,000 properties in England and Wales that would otherwise have flooded in December have been protected through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary defence measures. In addition, 183,000 properties were protected between April and November.

[Damian Collins]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the Environment Agency’s flood maps are as clear and accurate as possible? When the Dymchurch sea wall was completed in my constituency, it took a considerable time for the benefits of the scheme to be known to home owners and industry.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Environment Agency’s national flood risk assessment assesses the likelihood of flooding and that information should be transferred to insurance companies when the new data are available. I understand that local circumstances meant there was a delay in his constituency, but the map will be updated in April.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the Secretary of State for paying a visit to Upton upon Severn to see how the new flood defences protected the community through last winter’s floods. Will he consider carefully the business case and bid for flood defences for the market town of Tenbury Wells when they come to the Environment Agency later this year?

[Mr Paterson]

I enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to those in the Environment Agency, councils and other public services who worked so hard over Christmas and the new year. She is an indefatigable supporter of her constituents’ demands and the Tenbury Wells scheme is in play as part of the extra funding that is being made available, but I cannot make any announcements today.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In government, Labour provided funding to protect 160,000 households from flooding over two years. This Government will take four years to protect the same number of properties. Why?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a slightly dotty question. Some flood schemes take several years to plan and this really is not a party political issue; schemes were built by the previous Labour Government from which we are benefiting now and we are building schemes now that will last for a generation. There are substantial schemes in play. The circumstances have been incredibly difficult because of the awful mess we inherited—we still have the worst deficit in western Europe—but despite that we plan to spend £2.1 billion to protect 145,000 properties. In the spending round in November we got an extra £120 million that will over time protect a further 60,000 properties. These are good schemes and the hon. Gentleman should support them.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

5. What progress his Department is making on negotiations with the Association of British Insurers to ensure that affordable home insurance against flooding is available to householders in Cleethorpes constituency and elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

6. What policies his Department is implementing to boost the rural economy.

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

A £165 million package of measures from the 2011 rural economy growth review is helping rural communities. It includes support for five rural growth network pilots, which are expected to create around 3,000 jobs and 700 new businesses, and rural development funding. We are improving superfast broadband infrastructure in the remotest areas and boosting key sectors such as tourism. We are increasing export potential and unblocking barriers to growth by removing red tape.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks, particularly those relating to broadband, because improving broadband reception in rural communities will help their economy. Is he as concerned as I am about the apparent reluctance of BT to pay its full contribution to funding the roll-out of superfast broadband?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I cannot think of any measure that we are undertaking that will do more to help a whole range of economic activities in rural areas. I had a meeting with Ian Livingston, the chairman of BT Group, the week before last. We also discussed the issue in Cabinet, and the Prime Minister himself chaired a meeting on it this week. This is an absolute priority for the Government. We are determined to reach the target of 90% of premises being connected to superfast broadband, with the remainder having a standard of 2 megabits. If my hon. Friend has data on issues affecting BT, he should write to me.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

17. Does the Secretary of State accept that, according to the Government’s own estimates, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will take £250 million out of national rural economies and hit 14,000 workers in Wales? Will he listen to what people are saying outside the House about that abolition, and in particular will he listen to what is being said about it in another place, so that he understands the strong feeling that the proposal should be rejected?

[Mr Paterson]

I am afraid that I just disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The board is a dinosaur relic from 1948. The rural economy is now dynamic. Those in agriculture are skilled people—cowmen are like hen’s teeth, and skilled tractor drivers are in demand—and many of them are paid well over the minimum wage, which did not exist in 1948.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

11. In December, I was delighted officially to reopen the Trawden post office in my constituency, which has been modernised and has extended opening hours, thanks to investment from the Government. Will my right hon. Friend say more about what he is doing with Ministers from other Departments to support small businesses in rural areas, such as the Trawden post office?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As a previous secretary of the all-party group on sub-post offices, I wholeheartedly concur with and support what he says. Unlike the last Government, we have supported sub-post offices. There has just been an agreement on the subject with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Transport, and I talk regularly to my Cabinet counterparts about the benefits that rural post offices bring to the rural economy.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

If the Agricultural Wages Board is abolished, about £250 million will be removed from the rural economy according to the Government’s own figures. Prime Minister Thatcher never did it; neither did John Major, and the Minister of State signed parliamentary motions against the abolition—that was before the ministerial trappings trapped him. What does the Secretary of State say to the tens of thousands of lowest-paid farm workers who may face a race to the bottom in pay and conditions because, after a four-week consultation, he knows better than them?

[Mr Paterson]

I am just sorry that the Labour party wants to head back to the 1940s. I see a dynamic, growing structure in our rural economy. In contrast, will the hon. Gentleman join me in celebrating the £19 million investment by Müller Dairy in a butter plant that will turn 100 million litres of milk into 45 million tonnes of butter? That will stop import substitution and bring jobs to rural areas. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) should preserve his melodic tones for when he is on his feet, rather than in his seat.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

The coalition Government have brought a welcome fresh impetus to rural economic growth, but skills shortages are still a problem. Will the Secretary of State share with the House the benefits that the skills and knowledge framework fund of £20 million could bring?

[Mr Paterson]

I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back in her seat and now released to ask pertinent questions, such as the one she just asked. She makes a key point—that we will not grow the rural economy if we do not have suitably trained and skilled young people, and the measure she mentioned is vital in developing the right taskforce for the right jobs.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

7. When he last discussed with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the use of green fields for urban development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

DEFRA’s focus remains on growing the rural economy, improving the environment, and safeguarding animal and plant health. As well as responding to events such as the flooding that affected the west and south-west of the country over Christmas, we continue to explore new ways of ensuring that we are able to deliver DEFRA’s priorities more effectively, placing our economy and environment on a sustainable footing. This ranges from triennial review of our delivery bodies—the Environment Agency and Natural England —to a new integrated system for common agricultural policy payments. We must strive for better outcomes through greater efficiency, integration and innovation.

[Stephen Phillips]

Given the devastating impact that bovine tuberculosis continues to have on our farmers, will my right hon. Friend update the House on the most recent assessment he has made with regard to the deployment of a vaccine in cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

Last week I met Commissioner Borg, the EU Health Commissioner, to agree a way forward for developing a workable cattle vaccine. A provisional timetable has now been agreed, and a copy of the letter outlining this to me has been placed in the Library this morning. It acknowledges the UK’s leading role in pressing forward on a cattle vaccine. and for the first time recognises that we are on course to deploy a vaccine. The legal and scientific process could take up to 10 years. In the meantime, we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to check the progress of this terrible disease.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am in receipt of evidence showing that several horses slaughtered by UK abattoirs last year tested positive for phenylbutazone —or bute—a drug that causes cancer in humans and that is banned from the human food chain. It is possible that those animals entered the human food chain. Is the Minister aware of this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T5. Last year the Secretary of State said that there would not be a Commons vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004. Will he reassure the overwhelming majority of the British public who support retention of the Act that there will be no vote at any time in this Parliament?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is declared coalition policy to have a free vote on this issue at the appropriate time.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T8. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for launching the global food IF campaign yesterday. The UK runs a large deficit in food, so what can the UK do to increase food production and make its contribution to the global situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his impassioned speech at the Oxford farming conference in defence of agricultural innovation. As we consider areas in which we might renegotiate our relationship with Europe, will he comment on the importance of a European framework that supports science and innovation in agriculture?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his work in pushing for development of the agri-science sector. That was one issue that I discussed with Commissioner Borg last week, and we are determined to push ahead and examine every technology that could help advance our agricultural industry.

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

At last week’s fisheries talks, the Scottish pelagic fleet took a 15% cut in mackerel quota, in line with scientific advice, to compensate for the overfishing of Iceland and the Faroes. What action will the Minister now press the European Commission to take, and when can we expect to see it?

Common Agricultural Policy

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Written Statements

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

From 2014, ready for scheme year 2015, DEFRA will start to introduce a single computer system for all CAP funding in England, irrespective of the delivery body, meaning it will be quicker and easier to apply for CAP schemes when they go live after this date. This will affect four DEFRA delivery bodies: Rural Payments Agency (RPA), Natural England (NE), Forestry Commission (FC) and the rural development programme for England (RDPE) delivery team. As part of the drive to cut red tape in farming, it will mean that recipients will only have to enter their details once to a single point of contact rather than for each CAP scheme they apply for.

The new system will also improve the speed and accuracy of payments, improve targeting of farm inspections, reduce running costs, and allow the bodies to adapt easily to future policy or regulatory changes.

DEFRA will be working closely with the Government Digital Service, part of the Cabinet Office, in procuring the new delivery solution.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (December)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Written Statements

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

I represented the UK on agricultural matters and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), represented the United Kingdom on fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neil MLA and Alun Davies AM were also part of the United Kingdom delegation.

Fisheries

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave an oral statement on the elements of the fisheries negotiations at the December Council which directly affected UK interests on Tuesday 8 January.

Black sea fishing opportunities for 2013 were also agreed at the Council. Bulgaria and Romania supported a roll-over of the TAC for sprat and resisted a Commission proposal to reduce the TAC for turbot. They successfully argued that, given the fishing interests of non-EU countries in the Black sea, the only long-term solution was better regional management.

Agriculture

The Council welcomed the presidency’s CAP reform progress report and was generally able to accept it as a balanced assessment of the debate on the four main CAP reform proposals. Member states raised common issues they felt are still debatable or important to them. The most common was greening; with most member states happy with the direction of discussion and, with a bit more flexibility, an agreement could be reached. The feeling on internal convergence of direct payments is that it could be phased in over a longer period. On market management issues, some member states called for a “more effective” safety net and for production restrictions to be maintained for wine, sugar and, to a lesser extent, milk. For the UK, in particular I highlighted that there needed to be further work to simplify the proposals for farmers and national administrations, and cautioned against moves to diverge from a more market-oriented approach to CAP reform.

Any Other Business

Wine

The Commission presented two reports. One concerned the implementation of the 2008 wine reform, noting that the many objectives set out had been met and the sector was on a better competitive footing as a result, but also suggested some minor adaptations and improvements to the regime and its operation. The second outlined conclusions of the high-level group on vine planting rights, with suggestions pointing to a way forward that might see the development of a “planting authorisations” framework which was controlled by producers rather than member states. I argued that it was important to stick to agreements in previous rounds of CAP reform, including phasing out vine planting rights by 2018. This would provide certainty to businesses and generate the confidence to invest.

Coupled Support

Several central and eastern European countries presented a joint paper calling for the option of providing more coupled support in new member states than provided for in the Commission’s CAP reform proposal. The Commission noted that this would be dealt with during negotiations.

Sugar Levy Repayment

Germany requested the Commission expedite legislation to establish a legal basis for recalculation of historic sugar levies paid by producers in order to repay them, including interest, following a recent ECJ case ruling the existing provisions illegal. The UK and other member states supported Germany. Belgium and France called for the interest to be paid from Community funds. The Commission responded with a two-stage approach. It would soon publish an information note, and follow this up with draft legislation which would contain a retrospective revaluation of levies from 2001-06.

Milk Quota

The Commission presented its second report on the dairy market situation, which concludes that the conditions are in place for a smooth phasing out of the milk quota system in 2015. The report found that the market was functioning well with overall EU production below quota. I welcomed the Commission’s conclusions. Six member states had exceeded their quota and were thus subject to a “super-levy” in 2012. They disagreed with the Commission’s report and called for measures to help their farmers. Some member states also called for a re-examination of the decision to end milk quota.

Trade in Exotic Animals

The presidency reported on the recent international conference on the movement of exotic animals. In response the Commission noted its intention to bring forward a legislative proposal in this area.

Incoming Irish Presidency Priorities

The Irish Agriculture Minister (Simon Coveney) set out his determination to reach a CAP reform deal in June if possible. He urged Ministers to start proper negotiations and move away from repetitive restatements of national positions. The MFF notwithstanding, he hoped the Council could reach an agreed position in March to allow negotiations with the European Parliament to begin.

EU Environment Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Resource Management, the Local Environment and Environmental Science, Lord de Mauley, represented the UK at the EU Environment Council in Brussels on 17 December 2012. Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change) and John Griffiths (Welsh Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development) also attended.

After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislative A items, Environment Ministers adopted Council conclusions on “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Waters”. The UK welcomed the blueprint, praising its focus on implementation rather than new legislation, which is in line with principles of better regulation. Several other member states similarly supported the blueprint’s focus on implementation and greater integration.

Next, the presidency led an exchange of views on “Greening the European Semester”, based on the annual growth survey 2013. Discussion at Environment Council focused on the bottlenecks to achieving Europe 2020 resource efficiency objectives, and member states were asked to give their views as to which measures in the field of resource efficiency and climate action had the biggest potential to contribute to growth and job creation. A broad range of opinions were put forward. The UK made clear that actions needed to reflect the specificities of each member state; that any additional targets would need to be clearly justified; and highlighted our domestic actions to support resource efficiency. The Commission (Hedegaard) summarised the discussion by stating that the debate was timely, as the annual growth survey was increasingly becoming the key tool for setting economic priorities for the year to come. Discussions on the annual growth survey 2013 will take place at various EU-level Councils, and will inform debate at the spring European Council in March 2013.

Lord de Mauley attended a ministerial lunch, during which the outcomes of the COP18 climate change negotiations which recently took place in Doha were discussed. Member states recognised that overall a good outcome had been achieved at COP18 but, moving forwards, there is still much work to be done.

In the afternoon, an orientation debate on the seventh EU environment action programme (seventh EAP) was held. The Commission said that it had been a “difficult birth”, but that the seventh EAP should offer a clear-cut programme and a solid and pragmatic framework for years to come. The Commission said that there were only a few legislative gaps to be filled, and the main focus was on implementation. The tone of the discussion was generally positive. Many member states, including the UK, welcomed the focus on implementation. The UK said that they believed the environmental acquis was largely complete, and that any new proposals for legislation must be based on evidence and supported by a robust impact assessment. In that vein, the UK felt that the seventh EAP impact assessment was not quite fit for purpose, and stated that the UK would carry out further work to assess more accurately the ramifications of the programme. The specific concerns of other member states were wide-ranging, but several member states voiced a particular concern about proposed targets to reduce landfill.

Under environmental AOB items, a progress report was offered on the programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE), and the presidency provided information on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy (priority substances). The presidency also gave information on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA directive). Belgium, Spain and the Czech Republic all intervened to air their concerns about the proposed measures, after which the presidency curtailed the discussion, highlighting that there would be further opportunities to discuss the proposal during the Irish Presidency.

In the afternoon, several climate change items were discussed under “Any Other Business”. The emissions trading scheme appeared on the agenda in the context of aviation, the recently published carbon market report and the Commission’s proposed measure for changing the auctioning profile for ETS allowances (known as “backloading”). With regards to backloading, Poland presented a paper, based on Commission data, which appeared to show the negative financial impact that backloading would have for certain member states. The Commission responded by questioning the validity of their analysis, and were supported by the Netherlands. A proposal to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 targets to reduce CO₂ emissions from cars and vans was also presented. Most member states who intervened supported the proposal’s ambition in terms of target levels, and most supported looking at longer-term targets post-2020. The presidency also presented information on proposals for accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals relating from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). Finally, the Irish presented their priorities for the forthcoming Irish Presidency.

The UK also held short bilateral meetings with Croatia, France, the Netherlands and Lithuania.

Flooding

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Written Statements

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

The period leading up to Christmas and in to the new year has again seen flooding across the country. This was particularly unfortunate in that it impacted on people and families during the festive season and I would like to offer my sincere sympathies to those who were affected.

The recent floods which began mid way through December affected much of the country. Following on from previous flooding in November and a very wet summer, the December rainfall quickly led to further flooding. Although rain is not unusual at this time of year we have experienced a prolonged period of heavier than usual rainfall during the year. 2012 was the wettest on record in England with some areas experiencing over 131% of average levels. This heavy rain led to flooding from rivers, groundwaters and surface water.

The December floods affected many parts of the country with 532 properties flooded, most notably in the south-west with 379 properties impacted. Nearly 22,000 properties were protected from flooding and over 135,000 properties were sent a warning about the potential risk of flooding giving people essential time to protect their homes and possessions. In total over 1.1 million people are signed up to receive Environment Agency flood warnings.

I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Environment Agency, fire, ambulance, police and other rescue services, local authorities, the voluntary sector and local communities who contributed to the flood response. This is particularly relevant for those who put aside their traditional Christmas and new year celebrations to help others and to them I offer my sincere thanks.

I saw for myself some of the magnificent work that results from this multi-agency response when I visited Upton-upon-Severn to see new flood defence schemes successfully keeping high river flows at bay. I also met some of the people who managed the response at the local incident room in Tewkesbury. Last Thursday the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) visited Dorset and Wiltshire to gain a better understanding of the continuing groundwater flooding challenges and to meet some of the people who contributed to our operational response in the region.

As river levels fall, saturated ground continues to lead to potential groundwater flooding problems. The Environment Agency’s teams will be monitoring groundwater levels across England and Wales for many weeks to come and advising local authorities who lead on groundwater flooding. As the rain eases over the coming days slower responding rivers such as the Thames, Severn, Nene and the Ouse in Yorkshire, will continue to rise in their lower reaches. The Environment Agency will be monitoring these closely.

The recent heavy rain caused major disruption to the rail network in different parts of the UK, particularly in the south-west of England. Major flooding resulted in certain sections of the network being closed and this was compounded by landslips resulting in severe damage to tracks and signalling equipment. Where possible train operating companies either re-routed services or provided alternative means of transport, although this was not always possible due to local road conditions. On the roads there was some initial minor disruption to the strategic road network but the major impact was on local roads under the responsibility of local authorities.

In addition to the impacts on homes and businesses around the country, the current floods have been keenly felt among farmers. The Somerset Levels and Moors have been inundated for a large proportion of the year and continue to be under water. The Lower Hampshire Avon has been at flood risk since early July. In the north-east, there has been extensive and prolonged flooding of agricultural land in the Vale of York. I recognise the difficulties that this situation presents to farmers and offer my sincere sympathies to those who have been affected. It is important to note that investment in flood defence schemes has protected agricultural land. For example, 59 projects completed during 2011-12 provided an improved level of flood protection to more than 74,000 hectares of agricultural land. We recognise that concerns have been raised about clearance of water channels in rural areas and that the Department is working with the Environment Agency to examine the issue. My Department and its agencies will continue to do all that we can to issue warnings and to moderate the impacts of floods. We will assess the long-term impact of the recent saturation of agricultural land.

The Government recognise the adverse impacts that flooding has had on communities, both urban and rural, across the country throughout 2012. Continued Government investment means that during 2012 we have been able to protect a total of over 200,000 properties from flooding. We now expect to exceed our goal to better protect 145,000 homes from flooding and coastal erosion by March 2015. The autumn statement announced an extra £120 million for flood defences in England during this spending period allowing us to protect up to a further 60,000 properties.

We remain committed to ongoing discussions with the Association of British Insurers (ABI), on behalf of their members, and others about what replaces the statement of principles agreement. It would not be appropriate to comment in detail on their progress. A range of options are on the table and discussions have been very constructive. No final decisions have been taken. We are keen to improve on the statement of principles. We need a solution that ensures affordable insurance bills for those at flood risk but does not place unsustainable costs on wider policyholders and the taxpayer. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is responsible for the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance to help local authoritieswith the immediate costs associated with protecting life and properties in their areas. His Department stands ready to support all councils that have suffered from the devastating floods including financial support through the Bellwin scheme and we are monitoring the situation carefully. High river levels, groundwater flooding, standing water and surface water runoff continue to make conditions difficult in different parts of England. I encourage people to continue to take care and think about their own safety and that of friends, relatives and neighbours.

These floods, coming as they have after a long series of previous floods, have been a tragedy for those affected, and I want to conclude by paying tribute to the wonderful community spirit that I, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and Members across the House have seen around the country in their local communities. I shall, of course, keep the House informed of any further significant developments.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (December)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Written Statements

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

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Tuesday 18 to Thursday 20 December in Brussels. I will be representing the UK, accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responsible for the natural environment, water and rural affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA will also attend.

Tuesday will concentrate on fisheries. Wednesday will be split between agriculture and fisheries with the possibility that the latter will go into Thursday. Discussions on fisheries will cover fixing the 2013-14 fishing opportunities for deep sea stocks applicable in the Black sea and EU/Norway 2013 annual consultation, establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks, and fishing opportunities available in EU waters for EU vessels, in non-EU waters for stocks and groups of fish which are subject to negotiations or agreement.

The discussion on agriculture will focus on the presidency’s progress report on the CAP reform negotiations.

There are currently three any other business items on vine planting rights, a declaration of eastern European countries conclusions of the international conference on the movement of exotic animals and a report from the Commission about the phasing out of the milk quota system.