Fisheries

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Doran]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. He was good enough to tell me about that issue yesterday and I will refer to it at length later in my speech, but I thank him for that contribution.

Returning to the problem of safety in the North sea and the UK fishing industry, I have the most recent stats from the marine accident investigation branch for 2011, which show that there were 58 major injuries or fatalities in the industry, and eight of those were fatalities, so the rate is 7.5 per 1,000 people employed. It is more than twice the number of the next most dangerous industry, water and waste management, which has an accident rate of 3.3 per 1,000, and it is three and half times as many as the construction industry, which is often quoted as the most dangerous industry, with an accident rate of 2.2 per 1,000 people employed. All those figures are based on the Office for National Statistics business register and employment survey. According to the MAIB, the number of marine vessels lost was 24, which was a significant increase on the previous two years—in 2009, 15 were lost, while 14 were lost in 2010. Those are shocking figures.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he is making. Does he agree that it is very important for Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to talk to Ministers in the Department for Transport, particularly in circumstances where the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is planning to close fishing vessel survey offices—for example, in Newlyn in my constituency —without consulting the fishing industry? It is important that there is consultation, as the industry wants to work with the regulators to ensure that safety in the industry is improved.

[Mr Doran]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and valuable point. There needs to be much more co-ordination between Ministers, and I will come to that point later.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I pay special tribute to the families of all lost fishermen, the rescue services and the work of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen.

I shall concentrate on area VII total allowable catches and quotas, because other hon. Members will speak about other areas. The proposed 15% increase for area VIIe Dover sole is welcome. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advised an increase of 23%, but the restriction in the Commission’s multi-annual management plan would not allow it. Plaice is responding well to the same regime, and although ICES advised an increase of 26%, the Commission has proposed an increase of only 6%, despite its regulation on plaice, on page 6 of the proposal, stating that Channel plaice can be raised by 18%. It seems bizarre.

The proposed cuts that will particularly affect south-west fleets in 2013 include: 20% cut to anglerfish; a 32% cut to northern hake; and a 20% cut to megrim. Part of the reason for that was Spain’s refusal to provide its commercial data. Why should all member states be penalised because of the irresponsible action of one member state? There is also a proposed cut of 55% to area VIIb-k haddock. A mass recruitment occurred in 2009, but the total allowable catch has not risen to reflect it. The Commission is proposing a further massive cut, which will result in a greater increase in discards of gadoids, which die anyway when they are discarded. The maximum sustainable yield has increased year on year.

Page 5 of the 2012 quota management rules states that the south-west mackerel handline quota is ring-fenced. Will the Minister reassure me and confirm that that will continue in 2013? Although some of the quota is unused and has recently been used for swaps, the security that the ring-fence provides the fishermen who use that traditional, environmentally friendly and sustainable method of capture must be maintained.

[Andrew George]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue—I, too, have written to the Minister about it—and I entirely agree with her. Does she share my concern that the proposal is being made under the noses of the fishermen, who are not being consulted at all about its potentially devastating impact?

[Sheryll Murray]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

On the CFP review of regional management, although a sea basin approach is welcome, we must all remember that it will be for a limited period, because article 6(1) of the new regulation states that Union vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters. In his bid to secure legitimate sea basin management, has the Minister explored the deletion of that article from the proposal?

On the 12-mile limit, I am delighted that the European Parliament and the Council have adopted a regulation to extend the arrangements for a further two years, thus avoiding a repetition of the situation that arose in January 1983 and the subsequent case of Regina v. Kirk in the European Court of Justice. The Labour party claimed in 2002 that it had secured a roll-over of the 12-mile limit, but that was untrue. According to article 100 of our act of accession, the original agreement referred to the position as on 31 January 1971. That position, which was set out in the London convention of 1964, remained until the present 2002 regulation, in which it was changed. Fishermen from specific member states are now allowed access to specific areas for specific stocks, as is set out in an annexe to the regulation. I hope that the Opposition will apologise to UK fishermen for that error.

The restriction of access to member states within a certain band could help our fishermen using small—under 10 metre—vessels, who are struggling with their quota share. Action on that matter was yet another failure by the Labour party. Please will the Minister take soundings over the next two years to secure a better deal on access to our 12-mile limit? Newer member states do not have such shared access.

I understand the industry’s concern about how a discard ban would affect it, but I believe that the discarding of marketable fish is a wicked waste of healthy protein. I have often raised the matter of small gurnards, which are fished off my constituency, and I am delighted to inform hon. Members that one of my fish merchants is now using them as an ingredient in the Lipsmacking Liskeard pies range. The fish version is the Shipwreck pie, which is quite delicious. I certainly recommend that hon. Members try it should they ever happen to be passing through Liskeard.

Some of my fishermen are very worried about the implications of marine protected areas. Although I acknowledge that Natura 2000 sites cannot take account of socio-economics, the MPAs that the Minister will designate under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 can do so. Will the Minister reassure me that any consultation on the selected sites, which he is due to announce, will allow leisure and commercial fishermen to put their case should they feel disadvantaged?

I want to mention an MPA that has been the subject of a case in the European Court of Justice relating to Spain and the southern Gibraltar waters. Having declared an MPA in the southern Gibraltar territorial waters, the UK registered it with the European Commission, but Spain has contested those waters. Indeed, Spain included them in its own, much larger MPA, which it has registered with the Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

The Minister nods in approval, but I hope he understands my rationale.

The time scales of politics and fishery management are as distinct as beef and mackerel. The two things exist in completely different time frames. Ministers and politicians usually exist in very short time frames, and the decisions taken by fisheries Ministers are often not felt for at least five or 10 years, which is usually one or even two parliamentary terms and fisheries Ministers later. We have, therefore, Ministers who end up picking up the pieces of previous poor decisions.

I would also like to consider the elimination of catch quotas, and instead to implement controls on the amount of fishing. The intention would be to replace catch quotas with limits on fishing efforts that would help the fishing industry. Landing quotas do not stop fish being killed, legally at least. By limiting fishing effort, the Government can prevent fish stocks from being killed, and allow them to live longer and produce more offspring.

[Andrew George]

I do not want this to become a Cornish debate between Cornish Members, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to present a polarisation between fishermen and environmentalists he has perhaps misunderstood the issue. Increasingly these days fishermen are working with scientists, and the way forward is to encourage them to work together towards a sustainable fishing industry. It is not that fishermen want to fish the seas out; they are interested in a sustainable fishing industry for the future.

[Dr Offord]

I am obviously giving that impression, but I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not my intention. I do not believe that that is what fishermen in this country do. Hopefully, I will provide that reassurance as I make several more points.

A fourth reform that I would like to see, and which has been mentioned already, is to require fishermen to keep what they catch, as occurs in countries such as Norway. We all agree that discarding fish is a tragic waste. Most of the fish that are caught are dead when they are returned to the sea, so even when we comply with quotas nothing is achieved, because all we do is throw back dead fish. For years, EU regulators insisted that vessels should throw back over-quotas because otherwise over-catching would be rewarded.

I believe, and I hope that this point provides some reassurance, that such a reform could be a powerful conservation measure. If we provide and enforce limits on fishing effort, the proposal will work, because different catches are worth different amounts, depending on size and on the species caught. Crews become more selective, choosing the target species that make them more money, and they also supply low-value catch species for other uses such as fishmeal or, as we have heard, stargazy pie. Methods that allow greater selectivity include modifying fishing gear and choosing fishing grounds more selectively, and the reform would become an economic incentive, achieved through best practice.

I would also like the Minister to consider requiring fishermen to use gear modified to reduce by-catch. For years, Government laboratories have shown that they have designed such gear, but experience shows that the industry is reluctant to change its gear because of the financial implications, and possibly because the new gear could reduce the total catch. The only way to enforce such a change would be through legislation.

I would also like the Minister to comment on banning or restricting the most damaging catching methods. Some fishing gear causes untold environmental damage. Bottom trawl nets crush and sever bottom-living species. Gear used to trawl in deep water is heavier than that used in shallower water. The heavy steel rollers on the ground rope and the 5-tonne plates that hold the net open cause irreparable damage but the practice does not have to be universally banned. Large expanses of shallow-water continental shelf are dominated by gravel, sand and mud, which is perfect for trawling, and repeated trawling actually favours some communities of animals and plants that are resilient to its effect. Farmers plough their fields, but not every single year, and the same could occur in parts of the ocean. I have no problem with trawling, but I believe that we should establish how often it can occur.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider implementing extensive networks of marine reserves that are off limits to fishing. We have already heard one Member’s concerns about the economic conditions. Earlier today, I heard the Minister speak about the number of conservation areas that are being considered. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said that she would like to see those that are rejected replaced by others. I would like to see the number increased. The total number of 127 represents only 27% of the UK’s coastline. This could be an economic opportunity, rather than a problem for fishermen.

I am a great supporter of the fishing industry, and I want it to continue to be profitable, vibrant and safe. Many Members have mentioned the terrible health and safety record in the industry, which is due to the very dangerous nature of fishing. I would also like to see the opportunity to improve the fish stocks in this country, and we can do that unilaterally, away from the European Union and not as part of the CFP. I believe that it is possible to achieve those ends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Lady is very well versed in the fisheries in my constituency, and I should tell Members that her son, Paul, fishes from my island and fishes very well, and has done so for a number of years. She makes an absolutely great point about the abundance and wealth of great food that comes from the west of the Hebrides. That is not properly appreciated in the UK, and that food often goes to markets in France and Spain.

At this point, I should point out that there is a big infrastructure behind that industry, and there are lorries transporting the shellfish. Tragically, about a month ago, a young man from my island, Michael MacNeil, who had taken shellfish to France, was killed coming back along the road from Bordeaux to Angoulême with his empty lorry. It was a very sad day for the island and for the wider fishing community, which he knew very well.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of non-targeted dogfish, or spurdog. I should probably declare an interest, because I fished it as a targeted species in 1995, so I am perhaps partly responsible for its ensuing difficulties. They regularly appear in the Minches every winter, and they are worth about £60 a box. Sometimes on a tour, a boat can dump up to 10 to 15 boxes of these good, healthy fish because there is no quota to land them. If the boat did not have to dump them, they could be worth about £600 to £900, which could give the boat a good extra margin. The fish could be sold as rock salmon, as they used to be in a number of places, rather than, unfortunately, ending up on the rocks. I hope I am not making that plea in vain, because in the past, I have raised the issue of haddock in a debate such as this.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is aware, no doubt, that those fish are extremely slow-growing. They do not reach sexual maturity until their teens and there are two years of pregnancy. With a falling quota there is clearly a need to manage things with intelligence and skill. We need to be concentrating on much more selective gear, to avoid catching them as by-catch.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and fishermen do their best to avoid them, because they are a nuisance for them. However, it is heartbreaking to throw healthy fish back into the sea dead. We had a similar situation with haddock in the Minches during the cod recovery plan, a couple of years ago, which ironically meant haddock being dumped, reducing the amount going to market. Then demand was inevitably placed on cod, which was nonsensical. The good news was that after that period, and the resulting outcry, the haddock quota was increased by 200%. I look forward to similar action on dogfish. Landing it should be allowed, with the safeguard that it is non-targeted by-catch; the fish are being caught anyway. A distinction should be made between catch and landing, which often do not marry up, because of dumping and discounts. If we took a fuller approach we would be better off economically, and fish would go to people’s plates, rather than being dead at the bottom of the sea.

Another issue that has been raised in my community concerns some fishermen who want new boats. There are difficulties in making improvements in comfort and safety, but unless a vessel has a track record of fishing in a particular area they cannot get a boat. That is surely not sustainable in the long term. If that had been the policy in the 1920s we would still have people going out in sail boats. We are looking for basic common sense, so that things can change, and so that we can let communities be flexible and fishing fleets be renewed naturally over time.

The penultimate issue that my Hebridean fishing community of Na h-Eileanan an Iar would like me to raise is the introduction of a community quota for mackerel and herring, which swim in abundance in our waters. Originally herring were a staple of the Hebrides. There is a nice story of a Lewisman arriving a couple of centuries ago at university in Aberdeen. The lecturer brought him to the front of the lecture theatre and asked him to show his teeth to the then broken-toothed Aberdonians, and claimed that Donald had the teeth he did because he had been raised on herring and potatoes. Given that heritage, we would look for a quota of about 200 tonnes of each species to be locally managed for the local market and local consumption. The west coast herring quota is about 13,500 tonnes and the UK mackerel quota is 191,000 tonnes, and I do not think what I am asking for is unreasonable at all.

Communities should have a bigger stake. At the moment the UK pelagic sector is controlled by about 20 boats in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland and a small number in England. A healthy acquaintance with the culture of food is in danger of being lost. The issue is also about a sense of history, not to mention health, because the fish are rich in omega 3 oils. Two hundred tonnes is not an unreasonable amount to ask for, when we think of the amount of quota that there is. Also, we would need that much at £500 to £700 a tonne, because it would cost about £10,000 for a boat to be rigged out to be involved in a community pelagic quota. Such a step would demonstrate regional management at a local level, and would provide a crucial local say—as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—in the fisheries and the fish that swim abundantly around the Hebrides.

Finally, I ask that we treat with some disdain the ever-spawning bureaucratic output from the European Union, especially in connection with the sea. When ideas do not allow for consideration of economic impact, that surely explains much about why the EU is in its present situation. That is why we should, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, be well clear of the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). I congratulate the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate. Like them, I have been engaged in debates on fisheries—primarily in the main Chamber, although sadly not on this occasion—for 15 years, although I know that the Member for Aberdeen North has done so for a great deal longer. I therefore approach the debate with a perspective of déjà vu, as we go over the same subjects time and again.

Last week, I met the chief executive and others from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations in Portcullis House. I asked him to reflect on the past decade or so and what is different now. Is it simply that we all trundle out each year and say the same things, then trundle back until next year, when we say the same things again? He said what I remember repeating some 10 or 15 years ago: the essential need for fishermen and scientists to work together a great deal more. When I was on the Select Committee on Agriculture, as it was then known, we went to Spain and saw the stark difference between how this country managed its fishing industry and how the Spanish managed theirs: instead of fishermen and scientists being at loggerheads as they were in this country, in Spain they were working together and ensuring that the fishery was evidence-based.

To take fisheries policy forward, there are a number of building blocks in terms of the powers in the UK and those we are trying to influence in Europe, as is repeated year on year. As I think we all agree, some of the blunt instruments that underlie the failed common fisheries policy need to be put aside and replaced by themes such as the essential importance of scientists and fishermen working closely together, regionalisation and, in my view, greater emphasis on closed-area satellite surveillance and other forms of enforcement to achieve the necessary progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who is no longer in his place, proposed an alternative way forward that requires engagement with fishermen. I notice that he went out of his way, for one moment, to criticise Conservative-controlled Cornwall council and how it is managing fisheries. I have to say that I thoroughly endorse that sentiment.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

Of course. I thought that might provoke my hon. Friend.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend clarify his remarks and explain how Cornwall council is responsible for managing fisheries? The inshore fisheries and conservation authority may be responsible for managing fisheries eventually, but I know of no committee on Cornwall council at the moment with fisheries management powers.

[Andrew George]

I will gladly respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon made the remarks, and he was critical of the local authority. The IFCA is the level at which the local authority engages with fisheries, in particular on under-10s, but there are many other ways to influence fisheries in Cornwall, such as planning, transport and other council functions. I simply want to put on record which party leads that local authority.

A number of issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) raised the important issue of the mackerel quota and the risk of losing some of it, in the absence of any consultation with the industry. The mackerel hand-line sector has the lowest possible effect on the fishery—anything below size or over quota, because it is a pelagic fishery, gets thrown back and lives. It is the most primitive method of fishing, and it only has 0.83% of the total UK quota. The Marine Management Organisation is considering removing some of that quota because we have had a couple of years of low stocks in the area, not through overfishing but simply because migratory patterns change from time to time. In fact, the ability to switch that quota to cod and other species that are abundant in our waters is an important part of the method by which inshore fishermen manage their fishery. The Minister has had a letter from me on the subject, so I hope that he will consider it.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) mentioned the spurdog as a by-catch inshore. A number of fishermen in my constituency— I wrote to the Minister on behalf of Chris Bean of Helford, for example—have been affected in exactly the same way by the unavoidable by-catch of spurdog, for example. Working with scientists, we need to find ways to avoid those by-catches. If the fish are caught and not going to live, clearly there should be an agreeable method of landing them, if it were possible to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch, which I know is an issue of which the Minister and others are seized.

On the annual round, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation echoes many of the sentiments of the NFFO, because many of the country-wide issues also affect the country of Cornwall, but in spades. Cornwall has an ultra-mixed fishery, so evidence-based policy is fundamentally important in applying quota systems to it.

The Minister should also take into account recreational sea anglers, who are not properly represented and have no one to sponsor their activity, which is important to tourism. In that regard, Malcolm Gilbert and John Munday from my constituency have emphasised the need to ensure that we strike a balance in taking policy forward, not only in the IFCAs but throughout the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

1. What plans his Department has to consult stakeholders about the conservation plans which give effect to marine conservation zones.

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

I expect to consult shortly on the first round of marine conservation zones.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Like him, I am a strong advocate of this policy and have been for some time. May I seek reassurance that the introduction of this policy will create an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones, and will he ensure that all stakeholders—fishermen and environmentalists—are fully consulted on conservation plans, as well as on the designation of sites?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend and I are veterans of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We have strived hard to achieve the definition of ecological coherence, which I am confident we will achieve. He is right to say that the next stage of consultation concerns the management of conservation zones, and I absolutely agree that fishermen and other stakeholders who were involved in the early stages of the process should be included.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who has worked on this issue for many years.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I very much welcome the measure, and I am content that it has the investigatory powers to address the issue raised a moment ago. Nevertheless, the code has been in place since 4 February 2010, so the question inevitably arises of whether the adjudicator has the power to take evidence on the period between 4 February 2010 and the establishment of that post.

[Jo Swinson]

The adjudicator will be in place and, as has been outlined, the code is already legally binding. The adjudicator can look at the evidence submitted, and will undertake more investigations. It is up to them to gather evidence on the basis of suggestions that things are not working as they should, and require supermarkets to comply with their legal responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which organisations such as Traidcraft have put forward forcefully. Of course, in my duties as Minister I have met Traidcraft and other organisations to discuss the matter, but I am not persuaded that it is necessary to have the fining powers from the start, and I will outline why. I think that the sanctions that are in place and that will be available immediately are robust and will be sufficient to achieve the change we require. The adjudicator will be able to take one or more of three possible measures, two of them from the beginning: first, to make recommendations; secondly, to require large retailers to publish information, the “name and shame” power; and thirdly, if we do not think that the other remedies are working sufficiently well, to impose financial penalties.

That range of measures will mean that the adjudicator can tailor his or her action to the nature of the breach in order to enforce the groceries code most effectively. For example, in the case of a minor or unintentional breach, the adjudicator might decide that a recommendation to change behaviour might be sufficient to bring the retailer back into compliance. In the event of a severe breach that had caused serious harm to suppliers, the retailer could also be required to publish details of its breach prominently in the trade or national press. If it is deemed necessary, they could then incur financial penalties, if the Secretary of State has granted that power to the adjudicator. It is also important to remember that the Bill allows the adjudicator to take more than one measure if that is appropriate in a particular case.

[Andrew George]

Although I appreciate that the adjudicator will have the power to recover their investigatory costs, fining is very much the issue for debate, as the Minister has already identified. If either the adjudicator or the Secretary of State recommends that a fine should be applied, how many months would it take to implement such powers?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If the Secretary of State decides that an order needs to be made to allow financial penalties, it is important to know that that would grant the power generally, not on a case-by-case basis, and, as a result of the amendment accepted in the other place, we believe that that could be done within six months. It would be fairly rapid if it was determined that things were not working.

I know as a result of interventions and, indeed, correspondence with the Department that some stakeholders and Members feel that financial penalties should be available immediately. What I would say is that the supermarkets operate in a fiercely competitive marketplace, so major supermarkets are, rightly, very careful about their reputations. As an illustration, in 2010 the four biggest supermarkets—Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons—spent £385 million on advertising, which is an indication of the importance that they attach to their brands and what they have to invest to promote them. They are fiercely protective of them and I think that they are likely to take very seriously the impact on their reputation of having to publish their breaches or take out an advert in the trade or national press.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I did not realise that we could bring toys to the Dispatch Box. If I had known, I might have brought my bear, Frosty, which I have had since I was a child, for everyone to see. Perhaps we can do that next time, or maybe a Scalextric for the Table would be exciting.

I pay tribute to those in the other place who have diligently gone through the Bill and sent it here. It is a significant measure, but it has been a long time coming. Labour Members can rightly claim some ownership of it. As Lord Grantchester said, the Bill

“has Labour’s fingerprints all over it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 728.]

In government, we gained cross-party support for a supermarket ombudsman to ensure a fair deal for farmers and food producers from the major retailers, and to monitor and enforce the code of practice in the form of the groceries code. We were therefore pleased that the Bill was included in the coalition agreement in the heady days of May 2010.

However, the Government have dragged their feet on creating the adjudicator, and on the powers to help food suppliers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said,

“we look as though we don’t understand the urgency of this matter. Every week the Government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”

[Andrew George]

Of course, I also used those words when Labour was in power because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Competition Commission reported in April 2008, and for two years there were excuses and consultations, and a variety of reasons were given for the Government’s inability to go ahead at the time, despite the excellent private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place, introduced.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted with that intervention because we introduced the code, on which the adjudicator will now adjudicate. We are two and half years into the coalition Government, and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said when he was a shadow environment Minister at an Oxford farming conference just before the 2010 election that,

“Conservatives are clear: we will introduce an ombudsman to curb abuses of power which undermine our farmers and act against the long-term interests of consumers”.

However, we are on the cusp of 2013, and the Bill has just been introduced.

[Andrew George]

I do not want the debate to degenerate into a party political spat, but to put the record straight, the Competition Commission had the power to introduce the code, and it, not the Labour Government, introduced it.

[Ian Murray]

The code is there for everyone to see, and was introduced before the general election. The next paragraph in my speech pays tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives for all his work. If I had my pen handy, I might cross that out, but I would not be so churlish. I therefore pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Grocery Market Action Group. He has harnessed the support of organisations such as the Rural Shops Alliance, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, the British Brands Group, Traidcraft, ActionAid UK, Banana Link and many others in pushing the agenda from the early days of the Competition Commission inquiry, which he mentioned, in 2006 through to the establishment of the new groceries supply code of practice. He deserves great credit for continuing the fight, and I hope that he will support the Opposition in wanting to create a robust adjudicator.

I also take the opportunity to put on record thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place and has long championed the establishment of an adjudicator. It is now more than two years since his private Member’s Bill—the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill. In the debate on Second Reading of that measure, he made it clear that the concept of a grocery ombudsman or adjudicator was not about being pro or anti any particular interest group, but about fairness, and the Opposition echo that sentiment. Nevertheless we are here now and, in a sense of cross-party support, we wish the Bill a swift passage on to the statute book. It is important, however, to get the legislation right, and although the Opposition are generally pleased with the current Bill, we will seek to strengthen it so that the adjudicator has the powers it needs to be effective from day one.

As the House will be aware, competition authorities have held two major inquiries into the grocery market. The first, by the Office of Fair Trading in 2000, led to the creation of the code of practice to regulate the relationship between the largest supermarkets and their suppliers. In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading referred the market to the Competition Commission, which completed a second inquiry in 2008. At the time, the commission said that,

“the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers through various supply chain practices if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers.”

It recommended a strengthened and revised code of practice to be enforced by an independent ombudsman—an unambiguous case for an adjudicator. As a result, in February 2010 the Labour Government brought in the groceries supply code of practice—GSCOP—to replace the supermarket code of practice, with the intention of putting the adjudicator on a firm statutory basis.

I am sure Members across the House will appreciate the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which is brilliantly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who I see is in his place. He did a diligent job on the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny—I should perhaps declare an interest as I was on that Committee at the time and have probably just patted myself on the back a little.

In its report, the Committee raised two concerns about the way the adjudicator’s office would operate. First, it was anticipated that the office would be able to launch investigations based only on evidence supplied by retailer or suppliers. The Committee argued that third parties such as trade associations or whistleblowers should be able to submit complaints about retailers. I am pleased that the Government made changes in that respect prior to Second Reading in the other place. They are to be commended on that alteration which the Opposition consider key to ensuring that individuals have the confidence to come forward with complaints under the cover of an industry group to protect anonymity and secrecy.

Secondly, the draft Bill allowed the adjudicator to impose fines on retailers that had breached the code, but only if the Secretary of State made provision for that by order. The Committee rightly argued that the adjudicator should be allowed to impose fines from day one—I shall return shortly to that crucial point.

There is little doubt that this legislation is necessary, and it is important to emphasise that supermarkets and retailers support the adjudicator in principle. One such retailer wrote to me privately earlier this week and stated:

“The groceries code adjudicator will encourage fair and robust regulation of supplier-retailer relationships.”

That speaks volumes.

We will scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it delivers on three key tests—that it promotes innovation and investment in the supply chain; ensures a fair deal for farmers and producers; and delivers better outcomes for consumers in terms of prices, quality and service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). It was interesting that in his introduction he declared an interest as a Labour and Co-operative party Member. It has been my privilege over many years to chair the Grocery Market Action Group, which has been mentioned in this debate. Reflecting on the discussion about naming and shaming, I should perhaps name and fame the stores that indicated that they would support the measures proposed in the Competition Commission’s report of April 2008 when we wrote to the stores that would be affected. Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and Aldi were the three stores that indicated that they would support the measures, with some reasonable conditions. In spite of my efforts to talk to the Co-op, I was surprised that it was not prepared to sign up at that stage. However, the regulation has been in place since February 2010, and there are opportunities now for all those stores to reflect on that.

Like others, I want to commend many people who have been the architects of this extremely welcome measure. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has already been mentioned—indeed, I mentioned him in an intervention. His private Member’s Bill did a great deal to pave the way for the measure. Former Members, too, made significant contributions. In 1998, Colin Breed, the former Member for South East Cornwall, made a valiant effort to put the matter on the agenda. He undertook an inquiry, which stimulated a further inquiry by the Competition Commission, entitled, “Checking out the Supermarkets”. He stimulated much activity, which is reaping the appropriate reward today on the Floor of the House. The former Member for Stroud, David Drew, was also a significant contributor to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is not in his place, but was present earlier. I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been a strong supporter of the proposal for a long time. I also commend the Minister for an excellent exposition of the purpose of the measure, and the Government’s strong support for what is now Government primary legislation, even though its origins were a private Member’s Bill under a previous Government.

I do not need to repeat much of the background to what we hope will be legislation in perhaps weeks—certainly not many months. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, when I was originally involved, and certainly when the former Member for South East Cornwall engaged in the work, there was no party political support for regulation, even among Liberal Democrats, who subsequently adopted the proposal in their 2005 manifesto. In those days, the proposal that there should be any regulation was advanced only against all the odds. Even the National Farmers Union proposed a buyer’s charter and set its face against regulation, even though I and others had proposed it. It has therefore taken many years and a glacial pace to achieve progress. To be in the position whereby the proposal had all-party support at the last general election was remarkable. The larger parties clambered on board at the last minute, only months before the election. However, we had almost created a “who blinks first” scenario as we went into the general election, and all parties came on board and supported the proposal.

Significant commendation should be given to Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, and the whole commission, for an excellent inquiry, which commenced in 2006 and concluded in 2008. It considered all the evidence that many of us had been encouraging the competition authorities to scrutinise for many years. It reached the telling conclusion that, in some cases, as the Minister said, the supermarkets were guilty of transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to suppliers, with the consequent detrimental knock-on effect on not only suppliers and their capacity to continue trading, but consumers and, indeed, innovation in the retail sector.

I do not approach the matter from the position that supermarkets are wicked. Their activities are entirely rational. Had all of us been in the same position, and we had not maximised all our market muscle to advance the interests of our company, and we had therefore lost market share in a cut-and-thrust market, we would have failed in our duties. However, the question is, “When does effective, clever and successful use of power become abuse?” The Competition Commission rightly identified that we have long passed the point at which that use of power has become abuse, as the many examples that have been given today show.

The previous Government rightly supported changes to the common agricultural policy, which forced farming to become much more market facing. Price support policies were done away with, the protections that farming was so used to in this country were no longer in place, and the industry needed to live or die by the marketplace. However, how could farmers and growers succeed or survive in that climate? I appreciate that many growers, pig farmers and others struggled to survive long before those changes. Nevertheless, leaving that aside, how could farmers survive when, as Prime Minister Tony Blair said, the supermarkets had got them in an arm lock? One could argue that they had got them in an even more painful position at times. The supermarkets were able to control market conditions, which was a conclusion of the previous Competition Commission report.

What are we trying to achieve? It has always been my view that if supermarkets have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from embracing the Bill. I have said to the supermarkets that, if they are clever, they should embrace the proposal and see it as something good. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested that there should be a panel to review the supermarkets’ success in applying the code. My view is that, if the supermarkets are prepared to embrace and invest in the proposal, there would be a fair trade regulator, which could give a mark to each supermarket to show whether it was a fair trader and grade it accordingly. Supermarkets could then perceive the code as a promotional tool rather than a stick with which to beat them.

Fining has predominated today’s discussions and will doubtless do so in Committee. After all these years, I do not want to risk any further delay in implementing the proposal. I would not like any amendment to the Bill to cause such delay. Will the fear of reputational damage be sufficient to persuade supermarkets to apply the code effectively and not to engage in the sort of practices that got us into the current position? Of course, I am on the side of those who want fining on the face of the Bill, but I believe that reputational damage has an impact. I remember the days when genetically modified technology was introduced and available to the supermarkets. Non-governmental organisations undertook a lot of campaigning, which dissuaded the supermarkets from putting GM products on their shelves. If there were adverse reports, the campaigning bodies—if they were doing their job—would draw the attention of customers and the public to the failure of those supermarkets.

[Mr Spencer]

On that point, there cannot be a more passionately felt issue than animal welfare. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the British pork industry had much higher standards of animal welfare than its counterparts in Europe, but that that made no difference to whether consumers bought British or foreign pork?

[Andrew George]

There is evidence and evidence to counter it on all sides, and that takes us to a point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made earlier. Providing that customers who are buying British are reassured that it genuinely is British and not some kind of subterfuge, the point about animal welfare is relevant. Customers understand that significantly higher animal welfare standards have been in place in the UK for many years, particularly in the pig industry, and that is one of those reassuring messages. I agree, however, that it does not always work, particularly when the message becomes confused.

When I intervened on the Minister, I said that there was likely to be a lot of evidence of contraventions of the code from the time it was first put in place on 4 February 2010. My concern is that the position of adjudicator will be such that they will operate for only one day a week from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and when they are fully operational, they will work three days a week with three or four members of staff. I also understand that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority already wants to present 1,000 pieces of evidence to the adjudicator, and I am concerned about whether sufficient resources will be in place to deal with all the work, cases and evidence that may be brought forward.

[Jo Swinson]

Let me clarify to the House that the adjudicator will look at breaches of the code from when it comes into force. It may investigate evidence of problems that have been ongoing, but if a breach stopped before the adjudicator was established, it would not be able to impose sanctions. Because the code is already legally binding, other legal routes are open to suppliers that fall into that category. The Government want to ensure that this measure is successful, and we have outlined what we think will be its initial budget. We will, of course, keep that under review and work closely with the groceries code adjudicator when it is established.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, although I am also disappointed. A lot of people—certainly suppliers—want to ensure that we have an adjudicator that can look at breaches of the code that have taken place from the introduction of that code, not from the point at which the adjudicator is established. I hope that we can explore that a little further in Committee. We want to ensure that the adjudicator has the time and resources to investigate matters properly.

Clause 10 of the Bill concerns the power of the adjudicator to apportion investigation costs. I hope that will reassure supermarkets that the adjudicator can also apportion costs against those who make vexatious complaints or claims that are without merit. To a certain extent, that answers the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth—such powers already exist. I would be concerned about my hon. Friend the Minister’s proposal because the Bill is quite clear that such matters should be at the discretion of the adjudicator, and not at that of a self-appointed panel that might produce a survey report by which the adjudicator would then be bound.

Overall, the Bill is extremely welcome and not before time. I would not wish to get involved in a discussion with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whom I thank for his kind words earlier. There is no point in looking to the past for an explanation of why it has taken so long for the Bill to proceed. We must now ensure that it is implemented effectively and properly as quickly as possible, so that suppliers get the protection that they richly deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I will inevitably return to that point a little later, as it was raised by so many Members. Let me first, however, cover the other specific points mentioned in the debate.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) asked about companies outside the big 10. He is absolutely right that they are not specifically included in the Bill as levy payers, but let us recognise that the big 10 represents 95% of the grocery trade. If we are successful in the application of the adjudicator in improving standards of contract compliance, that will feed through to the rest of the sector by competition alone, if nothing else. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned length of contracts. That is not specific to the code of conduct, but the matter can be properly investigated in the context of an abusive relationship. Where such a relationship exists, that will be laid bare by the process.

The hon. Member for Bristol East made some good points about food waste. She knows that we have engaged with her on that issue and will continue to do so. I think I have a meeting with her in the near future to talk about that.

A number of Members spoke with a great deal of experience of the sector from having worked on the producer side. The hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton all have direct experience of working in agriculture and could tell us about the sort of downward pressures that they know suppliers regularly experience. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about trade associations. I hope I have been able to put her mind at rest about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised a number of important points. He spoke about access to the code and, as I said, I hope I have given him some reassurance on that. He talked about changes to the code. That is an important point. According to the process set out in the Bill, the adjudicator can put forward for consideration changes to the code, but that proposal goes back to the Competition Commission for consideration before being put before the House. It is important that we maintain that linkage because fundamental to the Bill is the abuse that the Competition Commission identified between major retailers and their suppliers. It would be a great mistake for the House to substitute our opinion for the evidence adduced by the Competition Commission.

My hon. Friend also mentioned retrospectivity. Let me underline the point again. If an abuse is continuing at the time that the adjudicator is appointed, it is proper that he or she should investigate that abuse, but we have a strong principle in British legislation that we do not apply retrospectivity to something that occurred before the date that a particular statute comes into effect. Therefore it would not be entirely proper for the adjudicator to look at complaints within the terms of the code that pre-dated that appointment if they no longer continue.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend says that the code would not apply retrospectively, relative to the date of the statute. Of course, the statute came in on 4 February 2010. The Bill merely provides for the referee to enforce the code. Retrospectivity in respect of the statute therefore does not apply.

[Mr Heath]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. If he would care to engage with Government lawyers on that point of law, I am sure we would be happy to engage with him. We can return to the subject in Committee or on Report.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) queried clause 15(10), and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also thought it was a bit odd. Let us debate that in Committee. What is proposed there is a safeguard which we hope will not be used. It is designed to deal with the circumstances in which the adjudicator was swamped with spurious complaints which hindered him or her from doing their work. The adjudicator would be required to pare those complaints down to the categories set out there. It would not stop them taking information from any source, but it would stop them taking complaints from any source. As I have said, I do not envisage that that will be necessary and hope that it will not be, so it is a reserve power, but I completely understand the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that it is in some ways an unusual provision. It is certainly something we can discuss properly in Committee.

Ash Dieback Disease

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have not yet formally responded to the independent panel on forestry, but we have indicated that we accept the thrust of its recommendations. I look forward to giving a full response early in the new year on that subject. The future for forestry is very bright, despite setbacks of the sort that I have described today. I repeat that we have not cut back on the allocation of resources. I hope we will be able to mobilise not just scientists, foresters and the voluntary groups for which he has spoken up, but everybody who has an interest in trees in this country, to ensure we have a thriving forest—not only today, but in future.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Given that there will be a desire for public vigilance, what will the Government do to ensure that public concern and support for taking action on this issue are properly and effectively harnessed?

[Mr Heath]

I am keen that all of us with an interest in tree health take responsibility for this. We cannot all be experts on fungal diseases of the ash—I do not expect that—but people should report clear symptoms of ill health in trees to the authorities. The Government play their part by ensuring that research programmes into aspects of tree health are augmented, and we will thus ensure that we have healthy forests in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am not blaming anybody. I have been working very closely with the NFU since I took office. I have been studying this issue since I was the shadow spokesman and put down 600 questions, taking a serious, detailed interest in it. This is the right policy. It is the policy pursued by every other country, as I have said. Unlike with the vapid pronouncements we have had from the Opposition, this Government will take on a deadly disease, which is a zoonosis, so if we do not get a grip on it, it will prove a risk to human beings.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

In view of that and of my right hon. Friend’s answer, it is important to base things on sound science. If he has read the science and understands the answers he has received to the 600 questions, he will know that the 12% to 16% reduction has to be viewed against a rise elsewhere. It will not rise as much as it would have done otherwise, but it is still a rise in bovine TB. Does he not accept that?

[Mr Paterson]

No, I dislike disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I used to work closely on the EFRA Committee and when I was the shadow spokesman. The evidence is absolutely clear: there was a 28% reduction in disease after nine years in the cull area. That is why we are going ahead next year.

Badger Cull

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Were we to eradicate every single badger, we would certainly eradicate bovine TB, but we would also eradicate a very important species.

The ISG concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”

That is the conclusion of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself says is the most scientifically robust trial that has ever taken place in the UK. We want policy to be based on the science, which is why we should be looking at what the ISG says.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If we are to talk about eradicating bovine TB, it is important that we go back to the science and try to put emotions aside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) mentioned a moment ago. The trials clearly showed that the best possible outcome would be a 16% reduction, but that is a reduction in the context of an increasing incidence of TB. Indeed, the Secretary of State has talked about the incidence of bovine TB doubling in 10 years. In those circumstances, all a cull would do is reduce the increase. It will not result in a reduction in bovine TB.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that it is worth reading what Lord Krebs said in the House of Lords, because it is exactly the point the hon. Gentleman identifies. He said that

“the long-term, large-scale culling of badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years. In other words, 84% of the problem is still there. To reflect on what that means, this is not a reduction in absolute terms”,

as the hon. Gentleman rightly said,

“but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase. So after nine years there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

That is the key point that Government Members are not taking on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, as we have heard in the debate and in the statement on Tuesday.

Many hon. Members will want to discuss vaccination. I am pleased that, in the west country, there have been efforts to roll out badger vaccination programmes. They seem to have been successful, although it is the very early stages. Many hon. Members will discuss the scientific evidence, which seems to me to be overwhelmingly in support of the notion that badger culling would have a limited impact if any—I believe it says there would be a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years.

However, in the time available, I want to focus on cattle-to-cattle transmission. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) probably misspoke when she said that if every single badger were eradicated, we could eradicate bovine TB—she went on to say that we could not eradicate all badgers and mentioned cattle-to-cattle transmission. In response to a question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in September this year, the Government accepted that about 50% of cases of bovine TB in areas where the randomised badger culling trial took place were attributed to badgers. The other 50% were attributed to cattle-to-cattle transmission. In areas where there is lower incidence, there is a much higher rate of cattle-to-cattle transmission.

It is important to address that point. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not seem to be willing to acknowledge in Tuesday’s statement the very significant role that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays in spreading the disease. Indeed, when he was asked a question about cattle husbandry, he said that the problem was that badgers can get into sheds. He also said that famers grazing cattle in fields cannot prevent badgers from getting to them. That is not what the cattle husbandry issue is about—the Secretary of State was focused totally on badgers, rather than on what happens when cattle spread disease. The fact is that many of the badgers that carry TB are not particularly infectious—[Interruption.] I can cite evidence on that.

[Andrew George]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not want to give way again in the time I have left.

I was concerned that the new Secretary of State seems not to have got to grips with cattle-to-cattle transmission, but I accept that tighter controls will be introduced from next year, which I welcome. When his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), made a statement on the cull just before the Christmas recess, she failed to mention cattle-to-cattle transmission, as I pointed out to her at the time, although she did mention it in her statement in July. There is a degree of complacency in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on cattle-to-cattle transmission, which needs to be addressed.

On the history of bovine TB, it is clear is that, in the 1960s, when strict quarantine rules and the rigorous testing of cattle were in place, bovine TB was almost eliminated from the UK. However, farmers were not happy with the regime and complained, and, to quote George Monbiot:

“TB returned with a vengeance”.

Professor Graham Medley of the university of Warwick has said that the only way to eradicate TB in cattle would be a return to the stricter and more effective controls that were in place 40 years ago. Professor John Bourne, who led the randomised badger culling trial—which, as we know, concluded that badger culling could make “no meaningful contribution” to controlling bovine TB—agrees with Professor Medley. Professor Bourne has said that only stricter biosecurity can control bovine TB. The RBCT report states:

“Weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone”.

A European Commission report of September 2011 revealed significant evidence of bad practice in English farms. It found that failure to abide by cattle TB prevention measures was widespread. The Commission gave the UK €23 million in 2011 for bovine TB control measures. Its inspectors found that the removal of cattle with TB was below the target of 90% in 10 days, and that, in the first half of 2011, more than 1,000 cattle had not been removed after 30 days. It found that there were 3,300 overdue TB tests as of May 2011 and that many calf passports, which are used to track movements, were incomplete. It also found that only 56% of disease report forms had been completed on time. Funding cuts were cited as the reason for the failure of local authorities to update their databases.

The Commission report concluded that local authority surveys provided evidence that

“some cattle farmers may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags, ie retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place.”

A couple of Government Members are shaking their heads, but farmers have been prosecuted for that in the west country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sanders]

It has a lot to do with it, frankly. Killing animals that do not carry the disease is simply wrong.

There is a significant body of scientific evidence on the efficacy of culling, both supporting and rejecting the idea. The majority conclusion, however, is that a cull could be not only ineffective, but potentially counter-productive in controlling the disease, by increasing the number of infected badgers and cattle through the perturbation effect. That was highlighted by the research carried out by the independent scientific group in the randomised badger culling trial, which published its results in 2007 and warned against the results of badger culls. Dr Rosie Woodroffe, who was referred to earlier, is a former member of the ISG on cattle TB. She said earlier this month that

“all… evidence shows that culling badgers increases the proportion of badgers that have TB”.

As the Government have now admitted, there is also great unpredictability surrounding the logistical element of the cull. Using so-called shooting, it is unknown how many badgers will be destroyed or whether the shooters will have managed to fulfil their quota. The longer-term consequences on local ecosystems—such as an increase in fox populations—are not entirely foreseeable. The cost of the cull seems to be increasingly complex, but there is a general consensus that it is a bad deal for taxpayers.

As Professor McInerney, emeritus professor of agricultural policy at the university of Exeter—right in the heart of the worst bovine TB-affected area—said,

“You pay about £1.5 million to get the disease avoidance worth about £900,000.”

It seems that not enough research has been done into the most cost-effective way to carry out a cull, but also that spending money on an ineffective cull would be a disastrous step in the battle to control TB. If the Government were to redirect those resources into further research and the development of alternative options, such as a vaccination, they would get far better value for taxpayers.

Let me turn to public opinion. It is obvious to most that the vast majority of the public are against the cull, as is evident from the e-petition. The Government seem to have lost sight of public interest and have developed the cull, which seems to be attractive only to understandably desperate farmers. It seems unfair to present those farmers with a quick fix that has no hope of a sustainable or successful future and to entice them with it. The responsible thing to do would be to back down from the cull altogether and explore the alternatives, to which I will now turn.

Of course, vaccinating cattle is the obvious solution to the problem. However, until we can develop a test that can distinguish between vaccinated and infected cattle, there is no hope of getting EU law changed, although some people contend that there has been a major breakthrough even in this area—an argument that others will no doubt pick up. In the meantime, we could start a badger vaccination programme. We have been vaccinating badgers since 2010, and there have been positive results. Research published by Dr Mark Chambers in 2010, using evidence gained in a field trial, showed a 73.8% reduction in positive serological test results in badgers. Just as in humans, when enough of the population is vaccinated, prevalence of the disease reduces.

According to the Gloucestershire wildlife trust, vaccinating badgers costs £51 per hectare, but that cost could be lowered. Getting groups to combine their operations with nearby areas and to share fridges, traps and other costly items drastically cuts the costs, making vaccination not only a more ethical option, but cheaper than culling. The money saved from not carrying out the cull should be used to fund the development of an oral vaccine for badgers. We know that oral vaccination is a much more practical solution, and the sooner one is developed, the better.

The Welsh Government’s TB eradication programme is something that we should monitor closely and consider adopting for England. The programme has combined badger vaccination with stricter cattle controls and improved biosecurity and has had some success.

[Andrew George]

On top of the efforts that my hon. Friend is talking about and the science, which should be taken into consideration, the recent results of research commissioned by DEFRA and headed by Dr Andrew Conlan at Cambridge university showed that one in five of the herds that had been given the all-clear on bovine TB were actually still harbouring the disease. We should be concentrating a great deal of effort in that area as well.

[Mr Sanders]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to that research, of which I was not aware.

The Welsh Assembly Government have been offering biosecurity advice to farmers within the intensive action area, and the Government should be doing the same in Devon and other heavily affected areas. It is an easy and relatively cheap way to ensure that farmers have the knowledge and guidance that they need to limit the spread of bovine TB. That of course will not solve the problem overnight, but better farming practices and a general build-up of immunity in the badger population will slowly lead to a much lower rate of TB infection.

As someone lucky enough to have been born and grown up in the county of Devonshire, it is now my privilege and honour to represent a constituency in the county. No one from the west country is unaware of the issue, and what unites us across the south-west, as I hope it does in the House, is a desire to find a workable solution to this appalling plague on our cattle, our wildlife and the lives of our wonderful farmers and the communities in which they live. But a cull is not it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak against the motion. It strikes me that many who have spoken in its favour have done so having assumed for themselves the mantle of majority support and that the country is behind them, but I can tell hon. Members that my constituents are not behind the motion. I can say that with some authority, because I surveyed some 30,000 households over the summer and one of the questions I asked was whether they were in favour of the Government’s approach to pilot culls to tackle bovine TB, and the results were that 59% were in favour of pilot culls, 27% were against and the others did not voice an opinion.

The reasons why a majority of almost 2:1 of my constituents are in favour of the Government’s courageous policy are simple and have been rehearsed many times during this debate: the huge loss of our cattle—some 26,000 last year; the huge expense to the taxpayer of almost £100 million last year and £1 billion over the next decade, if this is left unchecked; and a cost for every farm where there is an outbreak of £30,000, of which £10,000 is borne by the farmer. This is unsustainable; it cannot be allowed to continue.

As many hon. Members have said, there is a human cost to farmers, their families and the communities in which they live. That cannot be underestimated. One of my most special constituents is Mr Brian Warren, who runs a voluntary organisation called Farm Crisis Network, which provides pastoral support to farmers in distress. I invite any Opposition Member who supports the motion to come to Central Devon, sit down with Brian and listen to some of the stories about the misery that our farmers are going through as a consequence of this scourge. On most occasions, it is nothing short of harrowing.

I wish to deal with a couple of arguments that have been made by those on the other side of the debate. The first is that we somehow claim that our approach will be 100% successful. We do not. The culls will be pilots, from which we will learn. We accept that we will not eradicate bovine TB in the cull areas, but we have to accept that no other approach will lead to quick and certain 100% eradication either. We therefore have to use the proposed approach, along with increased biosecurity. The Government announced as recently as last week that biosecurity would be tightened up. We also have to look to the ongoing use of vaccination and the development of vaccines in future.

The second argument that has been deployed is that our approach will have no effect whatever on TB, or indeed will make it worse. Many Opposition Members have mentioned the independent scientific group and the Krebs trials as evidence, but time has moved on and so has the assessment of those trials. New analysis and new research has challenged some of their conclusions. I refer specifically to the report of one member of the ISG, Professor Donnelly. As recently as last September, she wrote:

“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull”—

the Krebs trials—

“to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28.0% lower…than in survey-only areas”—

as used in the trial—

“and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1% lower…than outside survey-only areas”.

As time has gone on, the evidence in favour of the effectiveness of culling has hardened.

[Andrew George]

Professor Donnelly has also shown that that reduction still represented an increase in the incidence of herd breakdowns, but at a lower level than would have been the case had the cull not gone ahead. That reduction is at the nub of the justification of the Government’s policy, but it was not an absolute reduction.

[Mel Stride]

In the absence of any other factors, that is correct. However, the pilot culls that are now envisaged for next year will be held on a different basis. The area over which they will be held will be substantially larger than for the Krebs trials, which is an important factor. We have talked much about the effects of perturbation, which will be reduced by having hard boundaries such as coastlines, rivers and motorways.

I turn to the issue of vaccination. It is simply impractical, as things stand, to consider the vaccination of badgers as a sensible way forward. Until we achieve a reliable oral vaccine we simply do not have the resources to go out and trap badgers individually, on an annualised basis, and have trained, registered and licensed personnel to go out and inject them with vaccine. That is simply not going to happen. I laud the Government for spending a considerable sum—some £16 million a year recently—to help develop the vaccines that we need.

It must be reiterated that even if we vaccinate cattle, we still do not have a reliable, licensed and usable test to differentiate cattle that have been vaccinated from those that are carrying TB. The DIVA test is not yet licensed and usable.

I have one or two quick points to make to Ministers. First, one reason why the NFU decided to ask the Government to postpone the pilots was that there was a fairly significant under-estimate of the number of badgers in the pilot areas. I press the Government to ensure that the same mistake is not made next time around, and to ensure that the badger survey that is being conducted, which I believe will be concluded next year, is carried out with great rigour and examined extremely carefully. We need to know what the numbers are.

Secondly, I ask that the Government press hard to ensure that the DIVA test is made available, fully licensed and put in place, so that we can use it if we can move forward on the efficacy of vaccinations and our position with the EU.

Thirdly, I ask Ministers to consider the fact that we need the consent of landowners who own 70% of the land in the pilot areas. In fact, it is important that we achieve well in excess of that, because it is quite conceivable that landowners will be leant upon at various points during the pilot, and that some may drop out of the scheme. We need to get well above that threshold.

Finally, we need to press on. We should recognise the courage and decency of the current Secretary of State and the Ministers who came before him, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). They have a done a sterling job of standing up for our farmers, their families, our communities and those who believe in the rural way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

That is absolutely true, although in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency and of mine that choice is not available, so land will go out of production, with the loss of all the environmental “goods” such as stewardship and protection of the landscape.

The only piece of work that we have on which we can base an understanding of the science is, as hon. Members on both sides of the debate have said, the report that the ISG submitted to the Government based on the randomised culling trials. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon was right that its conclusions are crucial to the debate, but the question is whether one stops just before the end of the report, where the group said that culling has an effect and can help, or goes on to the coda, where it outlines its ultimate position and states that it does not think culling is practical. I argue that that is for the Government, politicians and those who will implement the policy on the ground to resolve. That I why the Select Committee felt that we needed to give the Government a chance to respond.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Select Committee’s membership in the previous Parliament: the late David Taylor, an active Member on many issues and on culling; the former Member for Stroud, David Drew; and Dr Lynne Jones. They were of such independent minds that it was a great comfort to Lord McAvoy when the Committee visited rural North Yorkshire or the south-west to look into the issue, because if instead they had been here, they might have been a little more challenging of the then Government’s position on whatever matter was being debated. They freely admitted that they were not convinced that culling was the answer to the problem, whereas others wanted to give those in the farming community the opportunity to show that it could work. The collective view that we reached appears in black and white.

The scientists—Professor John Bourne, Christl Donnelly, Rosie Woodroffe and Sir David King—gave evidence before us. The atmosphere between them was interesting; it was probably more of an atmosphere than we sometimes have in here for Prime Minister’s Question Time, such was their commitment to the work they had done. None the less, the Select Committee reached the view that it did.

I should like to look at the alternatives to the culling trials. I emphasise that we are discussing pilots, not country-wide implementation overnight, and moving forward carefully, sensitively and in line with the science in two areas to demonstrate that culling is effective.

[Andrew George]

Of course, after these two pilots merely assess the effectiveness and humaneness of the culling method, the intention is then to roll it out throughout the country at a very much accelerated pace.

[Dan Rogerson]

We will see what happens during the pilots. Looking at the methodology is one of the key issues, as my hon. Friend rightly points out. It might be that other problems are pointed out, which would make it impossible to continue, but we have to give the people involved the chance to carry out and test what happens. As Opposition Members have said, we will not have the data that we need to move on unless we try to do what the ISG findings point towards: using the hard boundaries, using the wider area and getting on and doing it.

I have heard some hon. Members say that the coalition Government have cut spending on vaccination. Actually, since 1994, just over £40 million has been invested; over the next four years, the Government are planning to invest over £15 million. That means an acceleration of the effort towards vaccination. We still have problems with the tests. It is possible that the DIVA test will get us where we want to be, but we are still not there yet. The practicality of vaccination is another issue. We have talked about the practicality of a cull, but there are huge problems around vaccination.

We would all like to get to a state where it is not necessary to carry out intervention of this sort in wildlife. We would all like farmers and others concerned about animal welfare issues to unite around something—but we are not yet there. Effectively, we are saying, “Let’s do nothing.”

On biosecurity measures, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who, as she said, has looked a great deal at food policy, painted a bit of a picture of farmers who were completely lackadaisical and not at all interested in biosecurity. It is in their interests to be interested in biosecurity, as they are the ones who suffer in their businesses from restrictions and all the other problems that we have now. Of course they are taking the issue seriously. The one or two of them who are not will be rejected by the rest of the industry, which is absolutely committed to delivering on the further restrictions that the Government are introducing.

To say that the cull is an easy option and that farmers are going to hang up on biosecurity, forget all about it and just get on with killing badgers is absolute nonsense. I do not want to over-characterise what the hon. Lady said, but the gist was that farmers do not care. Of course, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was quite scathing in what he had to say.

I am running out of time. To Members who think that those of us with rural constituencies are doing this because we are after votes, I should like to say that we are not. Huge numbers of people even in my own constituency where bovine TB is a problem have told me that they are worried about a cull of badgers. We are doing this and supporting it because it is the only game in town at the moment—it is the only thing that we can possibly do to bear down on this problem. If we fail, we will deserve to be roundly criticised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It goes without saying that the research must be carried out, that it must be ongoing and that it must not be prevented as a result of what we are trying to do here.

I commend the Republic of Ireland—shock, horror, stop the presses: Paisley commends Republic of Ireland!—which has already carried out a cull. I should make it clear that this has nothing to do with jealousy on the part of those of us north of the border who do not get to shoot. The cull in the south of Ireland has led to a significant reduction in confirmed new infection rates among cattle herds. I believe that if this scheme is tried and proved to be effective, especially in countries where a land border is shared with another nation, we should adopt it. I believe that we should be learning—yes indeed, learning—from the Irish Republic on this important matter. I am happy to concede that point.

The BVA made a strong and significant point about vaccination. Although the badger BCG vaccine is currently available and undoubtedly plays a role in managing the disease, it is not proven to protect fully against infection. It merely reduces the progression and severity of the disease in animals that become infected later, and it has no impact on those infected prior to vaccination. We in Northern Ireland are currently carrying out a trapping test; we are trying to get animals trapped. As has been suggested, perhaps we should only use trapping to cull badgers.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman must accept that as badgers die at a very rapid rate—25% attrition each year—vaccination would result in a significant decrease of infection in badgers, whereas culling increases the preponderance of infection in badgers.

[Ian Paisley]

We have to accept that culling is not a silver bullet—it is not the magic answer—but vaccination is not the magic answer either. We have to try to tackle this problem, however. We have to continue searching for a vaccine that will work and will not destroy our herds and prevent us from selling our product.

We have to try this cull to see whether it can succeed. The costs are £100 million a year. We have to do something. This is robbing money from our hospitals, schools and roads. We are wasting taxpayers’ money; we are pouring it down the drain. We have got to address this problem.

The BVA has made it clear that there is no existing data to prove that badger vaccination has an impact on the incidence of BTB in cattle. Even if it does, it will have a much slower impact than the removal of badgers by culling.

I want to say a few words on the impact of TB in Northern Ireland. We have spent £200 million in the last six years trying to eradicate the disease, but we have failed. We want to spend £20 million this year trying to do it, and we are going to fail—and we are going to wipe out a number of our best milking herds. We also have criminals in Northern Ireland who deliberately try to infect herds so that they can get compensation. This problem has got to be addressed now. I hope the Government have got the guts to get on and do it. It will not be nice—it is not going to be pleasant—but we have to solve this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but I would like to return to a point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) made at the start of our discussion: that the debate can easily become polarised between “team badger” and “team farmer”, when what we need is “team science” and “team TB” and to address the issue much more calmly and rationally, because outside the Chamber there has been much light as well as a certain amount of heat.

I should like to emphasise from a constituency point of view and from my farming background the need fully to understand what is driving the issue and the disease’s emotional and financial impact over decades on very committed people in west Cornwall. Many Members have this afternoon conveyed the emotions that are felt from the impact of this devastating disease.

I strongly supported the RBCT in my constituency, which involved a proactive cull on the Penrith moors, and faced down the very strong campaign against the line I was taking just over a decade ago in support of the trials because I believe in sound science being the basis by which we take forward policy to bear down on TB. In a climate where the science might encourage legislators to prevaricate, to recognise dilemmas and perhaps to see only the need for further research and not to take action, the Government should ensure that they do not make the situation worse. We say that policy making must be evidence based, but as the Government former chief scientist, Lord Robert May, said in The Observer just a couple of weeks ago, the Government risk transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.

There are a number of knowns in the science, one of which I put to the Secretary of State at DEFRA questions today—that some of the figures from the RBCT have been exaggerated or cherry picked to justify the policy. For example, there is the argument that TB in culling areas was reduced by 30%. The research itself showed a reduction of somewhere between 12% and 16% in the net impact. Overall, this resulted in reducing only the increase in TB infection.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two of the other knowns are the recent breakthrough in the DIVA test, which could lead to it being put forward for licensing, and a 60% efficacious BCG vaccine for cattle, which could also lead to licensing, although it would require the Government to negotiate with the European Union for field trials within the UK?

[Andrew George]

There are certainly significant gathered knowns now that were not available 10 or 15 years ago. To go forward, we need to build a policy on a sound foundation—not simply on selective evidence.

In his summing up, I hope that the Minister will deal with the evidence in support of the Government’s policy. Will he recognise that the 12% to 16% reduction in incidence of infection for herds within culled areas in the randomised badger culling trial is not an absolute reduction, but a net reduction, which means only that the incidence is increasing at a lower level than it would have been without the cull. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Government were to acknowledge that.

Let us use the opportunity provided by the pause to go back and speak to the many scientists who are still saying that the Government have got this one wrong. Instead of having a war of words through the media, let us make sure that those scientists—the majority behind the ISG—are brought in. I believe that they should be involved.

Finally, I hope that the Government will accept that we should go to Europe, as was implied by the hon. Member for North East Somerset and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) in his intervention. These matters are not, after all, pre-ordained by God; these are decisions taken by human beings in Europe. We need to take a strong case to Europe in order to sort out the regulations and advance the testing of the vaccine and the DIVA test. That should allow us to come to a solution that is generally workable and does not make the situation worse.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) started talking about the matter two and a half years ago, as soon as we came into government, and he has been in regular contact with European colleagues. I will work with them as closely as possible once we have a practical basis to work on. As I explained to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), we are sadly just not there yet. That obviously has to be an absolute priority, because we have agreement about it not just right across the House but right across the country.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision not to proceed in the current circumstances. Above all, the Government should not take action that risks making the situation worse. Given that he emphasises the importance of science, will he take the opportunity provided by the pause until next summer to review all the science, including that recently commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself, which may point to alternative ways of bearing down on this terrible disease?

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comment, and during this time we will of course press on many fronts. We have a number of tools in the box, and we are using those that are currently available. As I have touched on, there are new ones coming down the track—PCR, the DIVA test, gamma interferon and others that I would like to investigate with real speed. We cannot just use the current tools, because we are not getting on top of the disease. It is getting worse.

Agricultural Wages Board

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely the case that there was overwhelming opposition to the proposal of the then Thatcher Government to abolish the AWB. Thankfully, the arguments against abolishing the AWB were listened to then, and common sense prevailed. Sadly, like much of what this Government are trying to achieve, whether that is the dismantling of the NHS or the destruction of local government, the abolition of the AWB is unfinished Thatcherite business, as my hon. Friend has just implied.

In a report for the Low Pay Commission in December 2011, Incomes Data Services argued that

“the agricultural sector is distinct from other sectors in that it is comprised of small employment units but with the additional feature of seasonal or casual workers”.

The AWB may indeed be an anomaly in our economy, but the agricultural sector is so different from other sectors of our economy that it is a necessary anomaly. Small farmers, who make up the majority of the industry, do not have the time, the expertise or, frankly, the funds to negotiate with their workers time and time again in what is an increasingly pressurised working environment.

The standards of pay and conditions set by the AWB enable farmers to focus on running their businesses and producing the products that we all need—increasingly so, as this year’s poor harvest demonstrates in many ways. In abolishing the AWB, the Government are not freeing farms from unnecessary bureaucracy. Instead, they are making the lives of small farmers more difficult and creating an even more bureaucratic working environment than the one that currently exists. That is the last thing that small farmers could possibly need. Instead of having to deal only with the AWB, in the future farmers will need to work with myriad different organisations, each one governing a different area of employment regulation and each, in turn, exposing every small farm business to new and different liabilities and complexities.

In their report calling for the retention of the AWB, the Welsh Government correctly noted that if the board is abolished

“pay bargaining would become instantly fragmented”.

It is important to note that, although the leadership of the National Farmers Union backs the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, it might not, on this occasion, be speaking for every small farmer in England, or Britain—it is certainly not speaking for those in Wales. I greatly respect the NFU and its leadership, and have very good relationships with NFU leaders in my constituency who, for the most part, skilfully, adeptly and effectively represent their members’ interests, but I think that they have got it wrong on this one.

The farming union of Wales, the young farmers of Wales and many small farmers across the UK want to retain the Agricultural Wages Board. The Government claim to be on the side of farmers, but on this issue they are making farmers’ lives much more difficult, making their businesses much harder to run, and doing the exact opposite of what the Government should be doing—at all times but particularly in these straitened times—which is supporting our nation’s farmers and making it easier for their businesses to survive and grow.

The situation profoundly affects my constituency and my home county. Across the north of England there are 28,180 agricultural workers, with 12,260 in the north-west, 3,300 in Cumbria—my home county—and almost 600 in my constituency. Copeland is the constituency that is most dependent on public spending in England. It is also the English constituency that is hardest to reach from Westminster—yes, there is a link—and more than 50% of the local economy is based on public spending.

Throughout my time in this House, I have sought to rebalance my local economy through the growth of our local private sector, but it is difficult to do that, and is becoming more so. At a time when the majority of public spending cuts are yet to bite—perhaps the Minister could tell us if he supports the additional £10 billion cuts that the Chancellor has announced—and when the budgets and services of local authorities in my area are being decimated, the removal of a body that helps small businesses to do business and maintains minimum workplace standards and minimal rates of pay surely cannot be right. This is a detached policy, from an increasingly detached Government.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. On what is likely to be lost, there is also the unique problem that agricultural workers are exceptionally isolated in terms of their negotiating and bargaining power. On the abolition, and the consultation that has been announced today, does the hon. Gentleman not share my disappointment? We should not be obsessed with organisational structure—I am not going to die in a ditch defending the existence of the Agricultural Wages Board—but the board provides protections, and without it the only safety net that agricultural workers will be left with is the national minimum wage. A whole strand of negotiations is available through the existing regulations.

[Mr Reed]

I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I must point out that I did my best for his economy over the summer when I holidayed in his area, but I am afraid that I did not write to him to let him know of my visit and I hope that that is forgivable. His points are absolutely correct.

In the written ministerial statement published this morning, it is claimed that the abolition of the AWB will help to achieve

“the Government’s objective of harmonising and simplifying employment law, and removing regulatory burdens from businesses”.

It goes on to say that it will

“contribute significantly to the Government’s programme of public body reform and support the Government’s growth agenda”,

but I think that the effect will be almost the opposite of what is intended. It is incredible and inexplicable that the analysis that is so simple and obvious for people who live in rural communities has not been brought to bear on what the Government aim to achieve.

Some 38% of all agricultural workers in England are seasonal or part-time employees—in Wales the figure is 56%—and statutory protections are woefully lacking. It is due only to the Agricultural Wages Board that seasonal and part-time farm workers enjoy the same rights as full-time workers. Without the board, young employees will have no set rates of pay, which will open them up to lower pay. Without the board, seasonal workers will not have secure contracts, which will open them up to exploitation. How often do we see stories of exploitation? Even now that we have the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, we still see egregious examples of exploitation in the agricultural industry and others around the country. How much easier are we about to make it for future incidents to occur?

Without the Agricultural Wages Board, part-time workers will not be guaranteed rest breaks, which will open them up to worsening conditions. In abolishing the board, the Government are giving bad employers the opportunity to cut pay and worsen conditions in a race to the bottom, and in whose interests is that? In the Low Pay Commission’s 2012 report, it was noted that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board could lead to an increase in rural poverty. Rural areas such as the eastern coast—my own constituency and across Cumbria—parts of Wales and rural areas of the south coast are already among the most deprived in the country. With the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, the Government—this Tory-led Government—are doing what most people already feared they would do: making life harder for the poorest.

I know that the Government and the National Farmers Union will say that farmers are not planning to reduce wages and conditions, and I have always rejected—and always will—the lazy, ignorant stereotyping of many in this House when it comes to understanding farmers and farming, but if this year’s dairy crisis has proved anything it is that farmers will continue to face downward pressures on farm-gate prices. Pay and conditions can be a soft target, even for the best farmers, when faced with rising cost pressures, such as the ones we saw this summer. The proposed abolition is bad for farmers—it will make their lives more difficult—and it is bad for employees, as it will make their jobs, pay and working conditions much less secure.

In addition, the AWB ensures housing for 30% of farm workers, provides bereavement payments and leave, ensures that new parents get child payments, gives suitable rest breaks for hard-working farm employees and provides a host of other employment benefits that as a result of abolition will be lost or greatly reduced. In his conference speech only last week, the Prime Minister said that his Government would always support those who worked hard. There are few people who work harder than farm employees; they work long hours, and many of them do literally back-breaking labour day in, day out, all of it to make products we all need and enjoy each and every day of our lives. Yet it appears that the Government insist on making their lives more difficult, reducing their protections and changing the agricultural industry from one often characterised by good working relationships to one in which wage negotiations are fragmented, and jobs, pay and conditions are no longer secure. After abolition, farmers who have for generations lived in secure homes will face possible eviction, and hard-working people will lose payments that make their lives just a little easier, as the economy gets worse and worse.

The Government’s decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board has not been followed by the Scottish or Northern Irish Governments, and the Welsh Government want to retain the board in Wales. Once again, it appears that this Government are pursuing a path of action with which very few people agree, and even fewer want to see. Even the NFU cannot claim to be speaking for every small farmer. Indeed, evidence suggests that only the biggest of farmers agree with the action; smaller farmers and farm workers do not want to see the AWB abolished. The board must be retained; it is not in the interests of farm employees, of farmers, of the agricultural industry, or of rural communities and economies to abolish it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

On my point about an obsession with organisational structure, I generally agree with the broad thrust of the Government’s approach, which is to abolish or amalgamate as many quangos as possible. We should always be bearing down on the proliferation of Government agencies and quangos. The important regulations and the six grades that are available, and the other protections for agricultural workers, could be transferred from the AWB to an existing body such as the Low Pay Commission. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should perhaps not be obsessed with the board itself but look at ways in which the regulations could be overseen or protected by an existing Government agency?

[Mr Reed]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I understand the point he tries to make. The issue, however, is whether the abolition meets the Government’s own criteria? Does it pass the Government’s own test, and will it cost more to undertake the functions that the hon. Gentleman outlines within other bodies than to retain the Agricultural Wages Board? Let us see the evidence—that is my request to the Government.

Finally, and in a way leading on from that intervention, in the event of abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, what checks will the Government introduce to ensure that wage levels and working conditions do not collapse? How will the checks be undertaken, and how will they be paid for? Will the Government undertake an economic impact assessment of how the abolition will affect each English region, particularly those that depend heavily on public spending? If so, will the Minister undertake to publish such an assessment, and if not, can he tell us why not? I look forward to his reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

That is interesting. My hon. Friend will know of Hazel Spencer’s letter to the shadow ministerial team for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

“I have been in horticulture for nearly 25 years, working for the same nursery since 1987. During this time, as you can imagine, I have seen many changes. The work is sometimes hard, sometimes repetitive and often carried out in less-than-pleasant conditions.

I initially started as part-time staff, at a time when we had very little right to sick pay, holiday pay and certainly no Bank Holiday pay. Over the years and mainly due to the negotiations carried out by the AWB on behalf of us ordinary workers, conditions within our industry have improved. We have received wages in alignment with those recommended by the AWB: SSP has been supplemented by Agricultural Workers Sick Pay, to bring it in line with a weekly wage during illness, and we received a tax allowance towards providing suitable clothing to cope with the conditions of our workplace.

Basically, what sustains most of the people who work in this industry is the fact that we are earning a fair day’s pay for what we do.”

My concern is that we are asking small farmers to become employment specialists of some sort. Are they going to go to solicitors? Are they going to make mistakes? Are we going to see more people before tribunals? Those are real concerns that the Minister has to address.

If I might be mischievous for a moment, I draw attention to an early-day motion signed by the Minister in 2000 that called for the then Labour Government to

“retain the Agricultural Wages Board as it is currently constituted.”

Does he still think that should be the case?

Ultimately, everyone in the Farmers Union of Wales is opposed to the abolition of the AWB. They are concerned that the removal of the AWB will leave farmers exposed when having to negotiate pay and conditions. The AWB is a very good model that could be used by employers and unions across the board. The model has worked since 1924, and the Attlee Government established the AWB in 1945. Again, as often with the current Government, all we see is a drive for cuts in mythical red tape.

I say this whenever we talk about employees’ rights: happy workers are the best workers. The real issue that has to be addressed in society, whether in the countryside or in the urban world of banking and finance, is fear of job insecurity, which is the thing most people worry about. When employment rights are taken away, people are less secure, less productive and do not perform as they should.

I know we are going through a consultation process, but if the Government do not put something in place, we will start to drive wages to the bottom. Yes, as the written ministerial statement highlights, farming has massive opportunities because of the growing world population, but those opportunities will only be fulfilled with productive workers.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) and the hon. Gentleman have both quoted the farming unions. The hon. Gentleman has particularly emphasised the difficulties that abolition of the AWB might cause small farmers. My impression is that although, without question, the National Farmers Union is phenomenally good and very effective, one of its weaknesses is that it is primarily a large farmers’ union. I do not think that small farmers necessarily have their voices represented through the NFU as effectively as possible. If I had heard from farmers that the AWB needs to be abolished because it constrains them from being more progressive in their treatment of workers, I might have considered that a stronger case for the abolition of the regulations and the AWB.

[Chris Evans]

As we heard from the Minister this morning, it is important that small farmers are involved in the ongoing consultation. My concern is still for the small farmer. If he or she gets into bother with employment law and finds themselves in front of a tribunal simply because they do not know the law—they have done nothing wrong—or something like that, it would be an extra burden that they do not need. They also do not need the extra burden of negotiating things such as SSP, which we have talked about, wages and certain allowances. Those people do not need further burdens.

We have already heard from the Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that they do not want to burden employers further, but all I can see is the driving down of wages and the burdening of employers. The AWB takes away that burden, and I hope the Minister sees the sense of my argument: first, we do not want to drive down wages; and, secondly, we do not want small farmers to face further burdens by being tied up with red tape. If the small farmer has to negotiate and is concerned about employment rights, first, they are not going to employ more people and, secondly, they might exit the business altogether, which would be a tragedy.

I hope the Minister will say something about what will be put in place to ensure that wages stay at the higher standard, rather than falling. What is he going to do? If the Government go ahead with the abolition of the AWB, what support will be available for small farmers on things such as employment rights?

Dairy Industry

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to the outgoing Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice). I had the immense privilege and honour of being his Parliamentary Private Secretary for a year and a half. With his experience and expertise, he was one of the best farming Ministers this country has ever had. His departure is a great loss to the Government.

I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers in 2006, in the previous Parliament, because of the terrible crisis my Shropshire dairy farmers were going through. An important statistic to remember is that in 1997, 47 cows were slaughtered in Shropshire as a result of bovine tuberculosis; last year, that figure was more than 2,000. I repeat those figures: from 47 to more than 2,000. The misery that that disease has caused many of my constituents is appalling. When I set up the all-party group, 170 MPs joined it. Uniquely, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, joined the group. I believe that that was the only all-party group he joined in the previous Parliament.

Our group produced a report in which the two recommendations were that we needed a limited cull of badgers and a supermarket regulator. At the time, we were told that it would be impossible to get either. We pleaded with the Labour Government to introduce a regulator and to take action on bovine tuberculosis. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. I am therefore slightly bemused to hear Labour MPs calling for us to support their actions on an adjudicator, because we pleaded on bended knee for years and no action was taken. One reason why the situation is so perilous at the moment is the inactivity of the previous Labour Government.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about a supermarket or groceries code adjudicator, I have been chair of the Grocery Market Action Group for the past six years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it was only just before the 2010 general election that we had agreement from all three main parties that an adjudicator or ombudsman should be put in place.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading proponents of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. I look forward to working with him to get that proposed legislation through Parliament.

I want other hon. Members to be able to speak, so I will just briefly say that I have sat with dairy farmers at their kitchen tables, and seen those grown men burst into tears. The emotion involved in seeing their herds slaughtered is profound. I hope to hear from the Minister what steps the Government will take to address this appalling issue.

I will write to the Minister specifically with regard to a constituent of mine, Mr Jones of Pontsbury, who recently lost a lot of his herd. He has been given new figures on compensation that are much lower than he thought. He is worried that he will not have enough money to replace the cows he has had to send to slaughter. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that case.

I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) regarding exports. I feel passionately about exports to north Africa and the middle east. Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are full of Dutch and Danish cheeses, yoghurts and other dairy products, yet there are none from the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will work closely with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to try to help the dairy sector find new markets in those countries.

Finally, I would like to put on the record that we now have a new Waitrose supermarket in Shrewsbury—the first one has just opened. My daughter and I go every Saturday to Waitrose, because it is the supermarket that pays most to dairy farmers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I will convey the right hon. Gentleman’s encouragement to the Under-Secretary, because the negotiations are indeed tough when dealing with countries that still pursue whaling practices.

May I put the matter of marine conservation zones in context? The Under-Secretary made a statement to Parliament in November last year, making it clear that an independent scientific review had found the evidence base for the designation of those zones to be insufficiently robust. I am sure the House wants the decision to be based on evidence and led by science, so we will not be rushed into making a decision without that additional evidence. On the figures in reports, the right hon. Gentleman should take them with a pinch of salt.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the introduction of further marine conservation zones, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the intention is not to put out of business those fishermen who engage in low-impact fishing, particularly mackerel handlining on the Cape bank off the Cornish coast? Surely, in designating these zones the intention is to strike a balance and to ensure that we get things right.

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that observation, which underlines the point about the need to ensure that the evidence is robust and to balance the needs of all those who require access to our marine and coastal waters, but who have at heart the health and welfare of our seas. We need to ensure that the evidence base is robust.