Veterinary Products Committee

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Today I am announcing the triennial review of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). The VPC is an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by DEFRA which advises the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State on veterinary medicines.

Triennial reviews of NDPBs are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

The work for this review will begin in April 2013 and will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing NDPBs. I will announce the findings of the review later in the year.

Further information on the review is available on DEFRA’s website http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/with/ndpb-review/.

Bee Health

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) not only on securing a debate on an important subject, but on the balanced way that she presented her arguments.

A healthy bee population is crucial not only to agriculture, but to the environment and the economy, so we have to get this right. I have a record of raising these issues when in opposition: some five or six years ago, I was one of those who was pressing strongly for a proper approach to bee health and for the then Government to invest in it. It is therefore a particular pleasure for me to respond to this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, whose responsibility it is, and to highlight what we have been doing to improve bee health, and our future plans.

Over the past five years there has been a welcome resurgence in interest in keeping bees. Many new beekeepers have turned to local and national beekeeping associations for information and support on how best to look after the pollinator species. The British Beekeepers Association, for example, reports that its membership has increased from some 16,500 in 2009 to 25,000 in 2013. The Government are playing their part in supporting and maintaining that growth in interest. The main focus of our efforts to protect bee health is through the work of the national bee unit, which is acknowledged as having one of the best bee health surveillance programmes in Europe.

It might be helpful if I quickly set out what the national bee unit does. First, it has an inspection and enforcement role: the unit has a team of some 60 professional bee inspectors out in the field controlling notifiable diseases and surveying for exotic pests. Thanks to their work and the results of the random apiary survey, which is internationally probably one of the biggest bee health surveys of its kind ever undertaken, we now have a detailed understanding of the health status of the nation’s bees and can use that information to target our inspection programmes to best effect. I am pleased to report that the incidence of the two notifiable diseases—European and American foul brood—remains nationally low, with infection rates around half those observed during the 1990s. Also, most importantly, no evidence has been found of exotic pests, such as the small hive beetle, and the pests remain absent from the UK.

Secondly, the national bee unit and its inspectors provide advice and support to beekeepers on pests and diseases, with emphasis on varroa management, during their inspection visits, or through training and education programmes jointly run with beekeeping associations. Last year, the unit took part in nearly 500 training events attended by more than 22,000 beekeepers. Guidance is also provided online: the unit’s website, BeeBase, provides a wide range of information for beekeepers to help keep their honey bees healthy and productive. I am pleased to report that the number of beekeepers registered on BeeBase has increased from some 12,000 in 2006 to more than 29,000 today. All those services are provided by the inspectors without charge.

Protecting bee health is not something the Government can achieve by themselves, nor should it be. The various challenges and threats can be properly addressed only through effective partnership working. The Government are co-funding a range of beekeeping association-led initiatives that are already beginning to deliver improvements with, for example, 400 new beekeeper trainers being trained and a suite of new training materials and courses already available. One of those programmes is the development of an apprenticeship scheme to encourage young people to become bee farmers, and we are working with the Bee Farmers’ Association to develop the programme further.

That is the context of what we are doing, but I know my hon. Friend and many of our constituents are worried about the perceived threat from the neonicotinoids. I take that threat extremely seriously. We must take any threat to bees and pollinators seriously, and we have kept the evidence on neonicotinoids under open-minded scrutiny. We have consistently made it clear that we will restrict the use of such products if the evidence shows the need. That is the crucial point for us at the moment as a Department that works on the basis of evidence. Although the potential for toxic effects has been shown, Government scientists and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides last year advised that the evidence then available did not indicate harmful exposure in the field. The field evidence is limited, however, and focused on honey bees, so we commissioned research on the field effects of neonicotinoids on bumble bees. That work has just been completed and the results are positive, although not conclusive. In particular, the researchers found no relationship between colony growth and neonicotinoid residues in pollen or nectar in the colonies.

Following completion of the study, DEFRA has drawn up a short assessment of all the key current evidence, which I have arranged to be placed in the Library— hon. Members might like to look at it. The assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field, but suggests that those effects do not occur in normal circumstances. We are also analysing the implications for the environment and for agriculture of possible restrictions on neonicotinoids. If neonicotinoids were not available, farmers would switch to alternative insecticides that remain legally available, and it is important to understand the implications of that.

The European Commission proposed significant restrictions on neonicotinoids, which, as my hon. Friend mentioned, was put to a vote on 15 March. The United Kingdom abstained. I underline that we did not take that step because we have closed our mind to taking action; we abstained because the Commission’s proposal was not well thought through. We have urged the Commission to complete the scientific assessment, taking account of our new research. We have also emphasised the need to assess the impacts of action, so that the measures taken are proportionate to the risks. We will continue to make that case in Europe.

The difference between the laboratory tests on which much of the information is based and the field trials that we have now undertaken is that the dosage levels are not comparable. The dosage in the field is much lower than that used in the laboratory experiments, so the toxicity might not be demonstrable or replicable in field conditions. We need to investigate that important aspect further.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

A number of European countries certainly believe that the evidence justifies a moratorium—we know that from the vote. The Minister’s Department also believes that there are risks, although it is not convinced that the risks are high enough to justify a moratorium. Would he, as a secondary step, or perhaps as a compromise, consider doing what many have recommended, which is introducing a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids for non-farm applications, such as golf courses, private gardens, urban areas and so on? That might help the scientific process and the journey that DEFRA is currently on.

[Mr Heath]

We will consider the effectiveness of all propositions that are on the table. My concern about agricultural use is that we need to assess carefully the environmental consequences, including the consequences for bee health, of using other substances, such as pyrethroids and organophosphates, as an alternative. I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has to say.

We have joined some of the UK’s major research funders to fund projects aimed at researching the causes and consequences of threats to insect pollinators, including honey bees. Understanding the threats will help us to identify the best possible action to support those species for the future. That is the key, given the role of pollinators in agricultural production, estimated to be worth more than £500 million, and in our overall food security. The initiative’s total spend is up to £10 million over five years, to which DEFRA has contributed £2.5 million. We look forward to seeing the results of those studies over the next two years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned that there are other stress factors, and she is absolutely right. The other stress factors include weather—the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—pest infestations or infections, nutrition and hive management. We need to consider all those factors in the round. She also mentioned the key importance of having a bee strategy, and emphasised that pollination is more than just about the role of honey bees. Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering exactly what she suggests—the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators—and he has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach might bring.

I end by stressing to hon. Members that the Government are committed to continue playing their part, working in partnership with beekeepers and other interested parties, to sustain the health of honey bees and other key pollinators. This is an extraordinarily important subject, and I and my noble Friend Lord de Mauley are determined to get it right. We must do so by considering all the consequences and taking action as seems appropriate on the basis of the evidence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

1. What policies his Department is putting in place to increase growth in the rural economy.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Stimulating economic growth is the top priority for this Government. We want to see rural areas contributing to and benefiting from that growth. A £165 million package of measures from the 2011 rural economy growth review is helping rural communities. We are improving superfast broadband infrastructure in the remotest areas and boosting key sectors such as tourism. We are increasing export potential and unlocking barriers to growth by removing red tape.

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He is right that superfast broadband is one of the key drivers of growth in the rural community. York and North Yorkshire have made great progress on delivering the Government’s target of 90% coverage by 2015. However, there is a danger that the digital divide could widen for some rural communities in the other 10% of cases. Will my hon. Friend do all he can to push the case for those rural communities?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must make sure that the advantages of high-speed broadband reach every community across the country, which is exactly what we are determined to do in time. The good news is that we are reaching an extra 100,000 households a week, so they now have the opportunity to use high-speed broadband. I think that is very good news and we will, of course, continue to roll out the programme across the country.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

If the Minister is so committed to boosting rural growth, why is he taking out of the pockets of poor agricultural workers a quarter of a billion pounds by abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which was opposed by two thirds of those in the consultation, including many farmers?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about the consequences. I note that in the other place yesterday evening, their lordships, having carefully considered the evidence, supported the Government’s position.

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

Last night at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on cheese, the Minister was able to see a wide array of excellent British cheeses, which are highly regarded in the world markets. I know that the Secretary of State has done good work promoting British cheese in China. What other countries will the Department target on behalf of these excellent British products?

[Mr Heath]

I think we have to do everything we can to promote excellent British products. Indeed, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about cheese. I was delighted to see cheese from my own constituency on display at last night’s meeting, but I was even more delighted only last week to see cheese produced only four miles from where I live on display in Dubai at the biggest international trade fair in the world. We were promoting the interests of British business, and over 60 businesses were there. I will also be pleased to join British companies in promoting good British produce in Bangkok next week.

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

The Minister will be aware of a good article and the very fine speech given just this week to the Engineering Employers Federation by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Much of what he is saying would regenerate the rural economy, but he is also a passionate supporter of crowd funding and crowd sourcing, which many of us see as a regenerative tool in towns and in the rural economy. What does the Minister think of that?

[Mr Heath]

I think that any tool that is effective in urban areas is likely to be effective in rural areas as well. I have repeatedly sought to make the point not only that rural areas must not miss out on economic regeneration but that they are in many ways in a position to lead, as they have a huge contribution to make. I want to ensure that every single community in this country has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of economic growth as it develops.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The residents of 22 villages in the borough of Kettering are concerned about petrol and diesel prices, rural crime and the access to and cost of off-grid energy, as well as access to rural broadband. What representations to the relevant Government Departments has my hon. Friend made on those important issues?

[Mr Heath]

This Department has a responsibility for rural proofing across government, which means that we continually have a dialogue with other Departments about all the factors that have the potential to hold back individuals, businesses and communities in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that we constantly make the point that we must have a clear regard for the more than 80% of the landmass that is rural Britain. It comprises only 20% of the population, but it is nevertheless enormously important to the fabric of this country.

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

How I wish that I had a pair of the Minister’s rose-tinted spectacles. In fact, the Government’s national economic strategy is shot; rural growth is further constrained by inflation running at double the national average, higher costs of living and working; and the slow roll-out of rural broadband is leading to open warfare around the Cabinet table. How does the Minister believe that taking another quarter of a billion pounds out of the rural economy and the pockets of low-paid farm workers by scrapping the Agricultural Wages Board will jump-start the rural economy?

[Mr Heath]

I spent 13 years on the Opposition Benches trying to press the case for rural areas. The then Labour Government did not listen to what was said in rural areas then, and I note that the hon. Gentleman is not listening now to the realities of what is happening in those areas and the realities of what is happening in the agricultural industry. If he did, he would take a very different position.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effects of partnership funding on the provision of flood defences.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

4. What recent representations his Department has received on tackling the problem of backstreet puppy farms and breeders.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

In addition to a recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on dog control and welfare, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord de Mauley, has received a number of letters on the subject of puppy farms, irresponsible breeders and the internet advertising of dogs. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides the necessary powers for local authorities to investigate allegations of poor welfare among all dog breeders.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful for that answer. In the Committee’s recent inquiry, we received evidence that a contributory factor in respect of the problem of status dogs is the number of backstreet puppy breeders, because dogs are more likely to become aggressive and unmanageable if they are not socialised and cared for properly in the first few months. The law currently allows people to breed up to five puppy litters a year without licensing, but we recommended that the figure should be reduced to two. Will the Minister look carefully at that proposal?

[Mr Heath]

I have every sympathy with the reasoning behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, and I certainly deplore the irresponsible breeding of dogs. I can assure him that it is already the case that if a local authority considers that someone is in the business of breeding and selling dogs but they have produced fewer than five litters in a year, a licence would still be needed, and any dog-breeding establishment that produces five or more litters in a 12-month period will also need a licence regardless of whether it is considered to be in the business of breeding and selling dogs. Guidance on that was given to local authorities back in 1999, explaining precisely where those responsibilities lie.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Backstreet puppy farms are a problem in the entire United Kingdom. As a Northern Ireland MP, I am also aware of such farms in the Republic of Ireland, with puppies coming through Northern Ireland to the UK and going directly from the Republic of Ireland to the UK mainland. Has the Minister had any discussions about this problem with the Government in the Republic of Ireland, so that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together with the Republic of Ireland can address it?

[Mr Heath]

I will certainly draw that point to the attention of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary and see whether he has had an opportunity to speak to his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and also in Northern Ireland on the issue. If he has not, I am sure he will want to take up the suggestion that has been made.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce the costs of EU regulations affecting farmers and food producers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

We are committed to reducing regulatory costs on farmers and food processors. In the EU we are working closely with the Commission to ensure that all new proposals adhere to the Commission’s communications on smart regulation and the Government’s guiding principles for EU legislation. We are reducing unnecessary burdens from existing legislation through our response to the farming taskforce, with initiatives that include taking action to simplify paperwork and improve the way on-farm inspections are performed.

[Priti Patel]

Figures from my hon. Friend’s Department show that in the past two years, 67 EU regulations have been passed, adding £500 million in costs to British farmers and producers. What steps is he taking to support our farmers by cutting back on EU regulations and cutting the costs of the EU for British farmers?

[Mr Heath]

Not all those costs will impact on farmers and food processors, of course, but the hon. Lady raises a valid point about the cost of EU regulation that I hope is not lost on Members of the European Parliament and European Commissioners. That is precisely why we are committed to making progress on our better regulation agenda and why at EU level we continue to press for all new proposals to adhere to the Commission’s smart regulation policy. We are also abiding by this Government’s principles for EU legislation, which include regulating only when there are no alternatives and ensuring that there is no gold-plating when introducing European measures into UK law.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

When I met the Minister on 10 December last year to discuss my Food Waste Bill, he promised he would give me a copy of the advice his Department had received from the Food Standards Agency about whether the provisions in the Bill to remove civil and criminal liability from good faith donors of food waste would be compatible with EU food safety regulations, as it was suggested by his Department that they were not. I am still waiting for a copy of that advice despite chasing the Department—can he update me on that?

[Mr Heath]

I can only apologise that the hon. Lady has not yet received that information. I will look into the matter in the Department to ensure that she gets what she has asked for.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had on the adulteration of food in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T3. Will Ministers update us on where we are with dangerous dogs legislation, given the continued prevalence of attacks and, indeed, organised dog fighting?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s recent announcement that we intend to proceed with changes to dangerous dog legislation by bringing in new antisocial behaviour provisions. We are talking to the Home Office about that and we intend to bring them in at the earliest opportunity.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T2. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents in Sunderland that when they buy a product, whether it is beef, lamb or even horse, they are getting what they have paid for and what they have been promised?

[Mr Heath]

I think that we have made it abundantly clear that that is exactly what needs to happen. Retailers and people in the catering industry have a clear responsibility and we are determined to do everything we can to make sure that that is the case, which is exactly what has been happening over the past few weeks.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T4. Do Ministers consider it acceptable that a number of historic English churches are being made unusable as a consequence of bat faeces and that mediaeval wall paintings and other historic monuments are being irretrievably damaged as a consequence of bat urine? Churches are not farm barns. They are places of worship and should be respected as such.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T7. Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday was an important day in the political calendar, as it was national salad day, and that, in my constituency of Harlow and the surrounding villages of Roydon and Nazeing, we have the highest concentration of cucumber and pepper growers across the United Kingdom? Will the Government place more weight on food production in the planning system to help the Lee valley growers and glasshouse industry in my constituency?

[Mr Heath]

It certainly was an important day, because I had the opportunity to meet growers and discuss exactly that issue. There clearly needs to be proper accommodation for growing food stuffs in this country through the planning system, but it is equally right—the Government are clear on this—that local planning decisions need to be taken locally. Central Government have continually to remind our colleagues in local government, however, that having sustainable food production in this country is a top priority. We have an increasing population to feed, and we must ensure that we can do so in a sustainable way.

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

T6. Even if the Treasury allows the Minister to resolve the general stand-off with the insurance industry over the statement of principles, will not the coalition’s flood defence cuts and the partnership funding plan mean that deprived areas such as mine in Hull will not be able to get the investment into the area to allow the insurance industry to provide insurance to my constituents?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Following DEFRA press releases on the food adulteration issue, one of my constituents wrote to ask if she was the only one who had a problem with the fact that even 1% of products might not be what they claim to be on the label. As she pointed out, that means that of 5,000 products 50 will be adulterated, and that if those 50 are popular lines, millions of people are being duped. Will the Minister please do something about the self-satisfied tone of DEFRA press releases?

[Mr Heath]

I am not sure about a self-satisfied tone, but the Food Standards Agency is discussing exactly that issue with consumers at the moment. There is a clear difference between very trace contamination and deliberate adulteration. We all understand that. The question is where the dividing line is and what is acceptable. It is quite right that the FSA should talk to real people about that and see what they think.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T10. It was a tough year for farmers in west Worcestershire last year, so can the Minister cheer them up by telling them how well the Rural Payments Agency performed this year?

[Mr Heath]

I would be delighted to do that, but I am not sure that even the performance of the RPA will be enough entirely to cheer up farmers who are wrestling with the weather. In the written statement that I made to the House earlier, I confirmed that by 19 February 2013, the RPA had paid out a total of £1.6 billion to more than 102,000 farmers, which is 98.4% of customers. That exceeds the performance target for March and meets the EU benchmark some four months early. Farmer satisfaction levels are the highest ever recorded, and the RPA has just delivered the most successful payment record in its history. That is an extremely good job.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now better informed.

Single Payment Scheme

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

I made a statement on 6 December 2012, Official Report, column 76WS about payments to farmers in England under the EU common agricultural policy single payment scheme (SPS) for 2012. I informed the House that the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) met its December 2012 target for SPS payments on the first banking day of the payment window.

I can now confirm that RPA met its second performance target more than five weeks ahead of schedule. By 19 February 2013 the agency had paid more than 98.4% of volume and 97.2% of value.

This is the best ever performance on the part of the agency which has now exceeded both of its SPS performance targets as well as meeting its EU benchmark more than four months early. A total of £1.6 billion has now been paid to more than 102,000 English farmers.

The agency has been working to a ministerial commitment to pay 84% of payments by value and 91% of customers by number by 31 December 2012, and 97% of payments and 97% of customers by end March 2013. The EU benchmark is to pay more than 95.238% of the scheme fund value by the end of June.

AHVLA Report

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Following the events at Ramsgate port on12 September 2012, when a consignment of 540 sheep were unloaded at the port which resulted in three sheep drowning and more than 40 more having to be humanely killed, I asked the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) to review its operational procedures and the application of the EU rules on welfare during transport to livestock exporters to ensure that all was done to prevent such an incident happening again. The terms of reference of this report were to investigate the overall handling of the incident; the AHVLA’s procedures for managing inspections at Ramsgate and how they work alongside other bodies present at the port during inspections; and the contingency arrangements required by the transporter and any needed by AHVLA as the regulator.

As I informed the House on 13 December 2012, Official Report, columns 479-535, this report was withheld from publication at the request of Kent county council trading standards while they completed their investigations and any possible prosecution action to avoid the possibility of prejudicing the outcome of these proceedings.

I am pleased that following the completion of their investigations, KCC trading standards have agreed that publication of the report can now go ahead. I am placing a copy of the report (suitably redacted only to remove information which could be used to identify individuals) in the House of Commons Library. AHVLA identified a number of procedural enhancements to its existing operational practice which it believed will ensure that there is no repeat of the regrettable events that took place at Ramsgate port on 12 September. These procedural changes are:

Inspection of every consignment passing through Ramsgate;

Tougher enforcement of welfare procedures;

AHVLA implementing its own contingency plans in the event of an emergency if the transporter is unwilling or unable to implement their own plans within two hours;

Improved procedures to ensure an AHVLA vet is always within an hour of the port to assist AHVLA inspectors in the event of an emergency or welfare concern;

Working with the operator of the transport vessel to develop new contingency measures in the event of an emergency;

Restricting changes that the transporter can make to the journey log of the delivery prior to the export. This will help maintain clear records of the animals during the journey.

Kent county council have commenced criminal proceedings against a number of defendants; their first court appearance is scheduled for Tuesday 2 April 2013 at 10.30 hrs at Canterbury Magistrates Court. Offences under “The Welfare of Transport (England) Order 2006” of loading sheep which were unfit to travel and of transporting them in an inappropriate vehicle have been alleged contrary to articles 5 and 9 of the order. These offences are summary only and are punishable by six months’ imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine.

Responsible Dog Ownership

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on initiating the debate. It has been a good debate in general, because we are all united over the broad principles of what we are trying to do.

Despite points of difference on occasion being expressed, there has been a very warm welcome to what the Government announced in the written ministerial statement and a firm view that we are going in the right direction. We are united, because we all want to encourage responsible dog ownership and to help to tackle irresponsible owners. The question therefore is, what are the right measures to achieve those objectives and how quickly can we introduce them?

We are absolutely clear that we will bear down on irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to attack people, and we will do specific things to address the appalling number of stray and abandoned dogs on our streets. I say that because the Government consider owning a dog to be a serious undertaking that should not be undertaken lightly. We are working closely with the animal welfare charities to encourage people to take more responsibility for their own actions and those of their pets. I speak for the Government, but I know that I speak for the House when I say that we care about dogs, about improving dog welfare and about protecting public safety.

The measures that we have announced—the compulsory microchipping of all dogs in England by 6 April 2016, an extension to the law on dangerous dogs to give the police powers to tackle attacks on private property and the ability for prohibited dogs that do not cause a threat to be returned to their owners under strict conditions—are all aspects of achieving the balance between protecting the public and the welfare of the animals people own. We have worked closely with the Home Office to ensure that there are measures to tackle antisocial behaviour that involves dogs—I shall return to that point. I hope that that will deal with the problems with dog control orders, because we can achieve the same objective through different routes in our criminal law system. We have a route available to deal with the issues.

I reject one aspect of the criticism: I want to make it absolutely clear that the measures are far-reaching. The Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), described them as “woefully inadequate”—they are simply not. They go to the root of the main problems associated with dogs and dog ownership. We are trying to tackle two issues here: to improve the welfare of dogs generally and to address concerns about public safety from dog attacks. The two issues need different but complementary solutions.

I shall deal with microchipping first, because the hon. Member for Wansbeck referred to it extensively. Compulsory microchipping is, in the first instance, a dog welfare measure. It will promote responsible dog ownership, by improving the traceability of owners, and help local authorities and charities to reunite more of the 100,000 dogs that stray or are stolen each year. Many such dogs have to be kept in kennels before being returned to their owners or re-homed. Having dogs stuck in kennels for any length of time is potentially detrimental to their welfare and costs animal welfare charities and local authorities nearly £60 million a year.

Microchipping will allow dogs to be reunited with their owners more quickly, and that is good for the dog and good for the owner. Indeed, 6,000 dogs have to be put down each year because their owners cannot be found. Quite frankly, that is a disgrace. Moreover, microchipping dogs will help to ease the burden on our charities and local authorities and allow more precious resource for other dog control and welfare work and for educating owners.

The Government’s proposal on microchipping has been widely welcomed by the police, local authorities, veterinary bodies and animal welfare charities. We have listened to their comments, and therefore, as was mentioned earlier, the initial proposal was different from what is now suggested. Following the consultation, we adapted our proposals in the light of the comments. From 6 April 2016, owners in England will need to have their dogs microchipped and registered on one of the commercial databases available. They will have to register the details of any new owner when they sell or give the dog away. Owners will be required to keep their contact details up to date on the microchip databases. My Department is working with database providers and microchip suppliers to ensure minimum standards of service for commercial databases and standards of microchips and that updated implantation guidance and training is available, as well as a one-stop 24-hour inquiry point for microchipped lost and found dogs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) referred to the cost of microchipping. I thank the Dogs Trust in particular for its very generous support, whereby a free microchip will be available for all unchipped dogs throughout England. Other animal welfare charities are offering free microchipping at their centres, including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross, and the Kennel Club is providing free scanners for local authorities, which is also very welcome. I do not think someone not being able to afford the cost will be an excuse.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck asked what age of dog will be microchipped; veterinary advice is that eight weeks is appropriate. He also asked whether there were exemptions; the answer is, no, we do not plan to have exemptions, because as soon as we create exemptions, we create loopholes, and we do not want loopholes in the system. Let me be clear that enforcement is not about harassing responsible owners, but an offence will be committed if someone owns a dog that is not microchipped and the offender will be subject to prosecution.

[Roger Williams]

The Minister has covered the cost of microchipping, but what about the cost, about which people are concerned, of maintaining the databases?

[Mr Heath]

The databases are already in place. They are available; they are being used and will continue. We do not propose to establish new databases. They will be available to the police and local authorities to access. There will be a single portal, which we are working on, so that no one has to worry about whether they use one database or another. Those databases will be used.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I have very little time to answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because I want to move on to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is extremely important.

The second key element of our proposals is to address the scourge of dog attacks on people. I will not repeat the statistics but simply say that regular attacks by dogs on people are totally unacceptable. We need to toughen up the law, and we propose to do so. Many hon. Members have asked when we will introduce the changes. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was kind enough to accept that there are conventions in Government, with which he is familiar, whereby I cannot possibly commit to a particular time for the introduction of legislation. It will not happen this Session, because we are only a couple of months away from its end. Introducing new legislation at this point will simply not happen.

I will be equally clear and say that it is certainly our intention to introduce legislation in the next Session of Parliament—not before the end of this Session, but in the next Session. That is our intention. [Interruption.] A shadow business manager—the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—is cheering, but she knows the constraints under which I make that statement. I simply say that we intend to do so, because, subject to parliamentary approval, we want the proposals to be in place during the next year. I hope that answers the major question that hon. Members asked.

Other matters were raised about whether the Law Commission ought to deal with the legislation. I do not think that this is a case for the Law Commission; it is not complex law and there are no legal ambiguities. It is of course always better to consolidate legislation, but I am not sure whether it is necessary in this case. Look at what the Home Office is proposing on dog control orders and the antisocial behaviour proposals being introduced. They will provide a very firm vehicle for the control of dogs and the anticipation of such offences, which the Home Affairs Committee has been looking at—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Members who want to leave the Chamber before the next debate should do so quickly and quietly.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We know the origins of the code came from the Competition Commission report in 2008; we have already discussed the excessive risks to suppliers, particularly overseas ones. The practices behind that would have had the potential to harm those producers overseas who are the most vulnerable and to be an obstacle to progress on the pay and conditions of, and innovation by, farmers and farm workers in developing countries. UK shoppers rightly enjoy the widest range of choice, via large retailers. The outstanding quality of produce cannot be in doubt, but the Bill has the opportunity to ensure that there is protection for all territories and to make a large contribution to the development of other countries. Amendment 30 asks for the code to be extended to other territories and asks the adjudicator to look at this matter when making recommendations to the OFT.

The subsidiaries issue is also worth exploring, as it shows clearly that the large retailers have different arrangements in place. That has to be taken into account, which is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It would be good to get clarity from the Minister on what the process would be if difficulties were identified with regard to the code in these subsidiaries or other territories. The relationship of the code in the complex matrix of buying and production is from the large retailer to the immediate supplier. As the Bill stands, that means that the large retailer is able to set up subsidiaries to buy apples from X Ltd rather than directly from the supplier.

Amendment 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and it goes to the heart of some of the main issues that have been discussed in the House over the past few months. Our amendment calls on the Government to ensure that the GSCOP, which the adjudicator referees, covers the issue of commercial pressures that can be put on suppliers and that drive down quality and safety, creating possible food scandals, such as the recent revelations around horsemeat in beef products.

The amendment would explicitly enable the adjudicator to include in its annual report details of any incidents where it had become aware that commercial pressure had been applied to suppliers to drive down costs, standards and health and safety, resulting in a drop in food standards or authenticity. To answer some of the criticisms that will probably come from the hon. Member for Shipley and his like, I should say that the amendment is directly related to clause 14 and the annual report to the OFT, not necessarily in the sense of the issues arising where someone takes a case to the adjudicator to deal with in terms of the code.

Amendment 35 would require the adjudicator to send its annual report to the Food Standards Agency. That would create an important link between the adjudicator and the FSA in terms of some of the issues related to the horsemeat scandal that we have seen in recent weeks. As has been reported, the UK’s National Beef Association has blamed what it called the “bullying culture” that retail buyers have used for decades for the presence of horsemeat in beef products. Its national director, Chris Mallon, has said the public and retailers were paying the price for

“short-sighted, price-led purchasing tactics”.

He said that buyers had

“adopted a bullying culture aimed exclusively at securing as much farm food as possible, for as little cost as possible, and the result is tortured supply chains that add so much unnecessary cost that short cuts on quality and traceability, and even cheating by some suppliers, was inevitable.”

That quote shows how important it might be to include the amendment in the Bill.

Consumers must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe, but over recent weeks that confidence has been hit hard. Many of the problems in this particular scandal have been outright criminal, and, of course, the criminal courts will deal with those, but Ministers have been slow to act, as has been shown in our debates in this House. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has been ahead of the UK every step of the way. By having an annual reporting requirement on food safety and hygiene through the adjudicator, some of the issues that have been raised eloquently by the national director of the UK NBA could be dealt with.

The amendment has another link with the Food Standards Agency, as its budget has been cut from £143 million to £132 million. Although we should not get into a debate today about budgets of particular Government agencies or Departments, it would be an important step to say that the adjudicator, in its report to the OFT, could refer some of these cases. That might help to soften the blow caused by the reduction in resources.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman made clear his belief, which is certainly my belief, that no matter what commercial pressures there are, it does not excuse criminal behaviour on the part of producers, processors or retailers.

[Ian Murray]

I agree 100% with the Minister. We hope that by having the adjudicator reporting annually to the OFT on those issues, steps would be taken before any criminal activity had taken place. That might be dealt with at a much earlier stage in the process, because the adjudicator may come across instances where it feels the costs have been driven down so low as to compromise food safety. Our approach would allow a supplier to take such issues to the adjudicator, and they may be included in the adjudicator’s annual report. That might help to stop things reaching the stage we have seen in the past few weeks. The amendment could play an important part in tackling future abuses that could occur—that goes to the heart of what the Minister has just said. Does the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is going to reply, agree that it is crucial that the adjudicator is alert to these issues? Will she therefore support our amendment to allow the adjudicator to report any abuses it sees occurring on food hygiene and food safety issues directly to the OFT? My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore might want to expand on some of those points.

Amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is critical as it would require the Office of Fair Trading explicitly to respond to the recommendations that the adjudicator publishes. If the adjudicator were to include a food hygiene or food safety issue in their annual report to the OFT, it is only fair that the OFT should have to respond to those recommendations. That should be considered in how the GSCOP and the adjudicator are set up.

As the Bill stands, the adjudicator can make recommendations to the OFT should it determine that changes should be made to the groceries code. Of course, only the OFT can change the code, but, critically, nothing in the Bill binds it merely to respond to the recommendations. We are not saying that a binding clause in the Bill should ensure that the OFT acts on every recommendation, but the OFT should at least be bound to respond to the recommendations so that the industry has some transparency on the issues raised in the report. We made that point in Committee on a number of occasions. The Minister responded that if the OFT continued to ignore the recommendations, the Government would step in and do something about it. Indeed, she suggested that there could be some review of the OFT’s processes. That is all well and good, and I appreciate the fact that she gave that reassurance, but we are looking for a two-way dialogue between the adjudicator’s office and the OFT. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and I have put our names to the amendment and we will certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington if he wishes to press it to a Division.

Let me turn briefly to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Shipley. Sometimes we need regulation to allow the free market to work properly. Indeed, the whole purpose of the groceries code and the groceries code adjudicator is to ensure that those markets work properly without a damaging imbalance in the power of the various factors concerned. The large companies listed by the hon. Gentleman can look after themselves, and he is right to raise that issue, but they will not go to the adjudicator. The adjudicator has been set up to consider supplier imbalances in market power, as considered by the Competition Commission. I am sure that the adjudicator would not wish to consider an imbalance in the other direction just because she is not mandated to do so.

As for the sunset clause, the hon. Member for Shipley cannot have it both ways. He says that the adjudicator will have nothing to do, but also says that the adjudicator will look after the interests of the very large organisations. If the adjudicator will have lots to do, we will not want a sunset clause after seven years. The adjudicator will therefore carry on. New clause 3 is unnecessary as we must show our confidence that the adjudicator will do a good job.

I do not think that I need to deal directly with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), given that we have already dealt through amendment 30 with whether the ActionAid and Traidcraft issues of international territorial extent can be dealt with. I have some sympathy with amendment 27, as one of the big arguments in Committee was that the adjudicator could not come in on day one after Royal Assent—I think the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) also mentioned that in one of his amendments—to consider the issues happening now as well as to collect evidence on what has happened since the groceries code came into effect. The amendment would be very sensible; the quicker the adjudicator gets up and running the better as she will have to deal with either lots of issues or, if the hon. Member for Shipley is correct, none.

I will wish to test the view of the House on amendment 34, which is, of course, consequential on amendment 35. We would also like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington if he wishes to press amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

I have read the advice in full. Far from scaremongering, I have quoted the advice from those who advise the Government—

[Mr Heath]

It is important that people understand what that advice is and what the data suggest. It has been set out very clearly by the chief medical officer, and I do not want anyone to go away from this debate believing that one in 20,000 people are subject to serious medical consequences from consuming bute. It is clear that the highest level that could be found in food products is, by a factor of thousands—by a factor of 10³—lower than that shown to have any adverse consequences for human health. Moreover, those adverse consequences affect only a very small proportion of people receiving pharmaceutical doses of the drug. It is very important that we understand the risk factors, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent them.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Before I go any further, I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their help in shaping this Bill, which is important to my Department and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, where my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is Under-Secretary. It is something of a cliché on these occasions to say that the Bill has been improved by debate, but I genuinely feel that that has been the case with this Bill. It has also been helped by the sense of common purpose in the House for making progress on it.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

Of course I will. I was going to say something nice about the hon. Gentleman later, but he may prevent my doing that now—I hope not.

[Mr Bailey]

I hope that my remarks will not preclude that. In my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills I often need to berate Ministers for not doing what the Committee’s in-depth research has demonstrated to be necessary. On this occasion, although the Under-Secretary had concerns about some of our recommendations, on reflection she pretty much adopted whatever the Committee said was appropriate. Just as I berate Ministers on occasion, I want publicly to thank the Under-Secretary for her flexibility and reasonableness.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the Minister answers that rather lengthy intervention, bordering on a speech, I remind the House that this business must be completed by 4.45 pm. If any interventions are to be made, can they be short, please?

[Mr Heath]

Thank you for that timely reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief in my list of thanks.

I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) for what he just said. I also thank his Committee and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their work on improving the Bill.

I want to start with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, as the hon. Gentleman says, has done a superb job of listening to people as the Bill has made progress. She took up a baton that was already well on its way thanks to her predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, to the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and to my immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I can exclusively reveal that there was a conspiracy within government, of which I was part in my previous role as Deputy Leader of the House, to ensure that the Bill made progress whatever other priorities arose as we all felt that it was important.

I also want to mention the contribution of a few others who are not in government. It was a delight to find myself so often in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and he has campaigned vigorously for the measure as chair of the grocery market action group. I stood shoulder to shoulder with him when we were in opposition to make it a reality and his efforts have been appreciated. I hope he feels that they have been rewarded as the Bill reaches the statute book.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has long pressed for the adjudicator, including in his private Member’s Bill. His pleas fell on deaf ears at the time, but now all is sweetness and light and the Opposition are united with us in taking the Bill forward. I should add, as I am trying to be as consensual as possible, that I know from what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench made debates in Committee enjoyable and that they made a genuine contribution. As they know, we have listened to what they have had to say and have on occasion been able to agree with them. That goes for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who often secretly agree with me but sometimes cannot express it openly—

[Ian Murray]

Give examples!

[Mr Heath]

I could not possibly; it would embarrass the hon. Member for Ogmore too much.

Now that I have awarded bouquets around the House, I want simply to say that the Bill establishes an adjudicator to enforce the groceries supply code of practice. As recommended by the Competition Commission’s market investigation in 2008, the adjudicator will ensure that large retailers treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly. The adjudicator will be able to receive anonymous complaints from any source and may decide to launch an investigation if it is felt that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the code has been broken. We anticipate there will be around two to four investigations per year and if the adjudicator is satisfied that the code has been broken, a range of sanctions will be available. The adjudicator can make recommendations to a retailer, require it to publish details of the breach, and, in the most egregious cases, impose a financial penalty.

We also announced our preferred candidate for the adjudicator last month. Christine Tacon has a wide range of experience in the groceries sector, has held senior corporate roles in retailers and direct suppliers and spent 11 years as managing director of Co-operative Farms, the largest farming operation in the UK. Members will be pleased to note that she will undergo her pre-appointment hearing with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee tomorrow, although Ministers retain the final decision on her appointment. We are confident, and we hope that the Committee agrees, that she will be an excellent adjudicator.

We are satisfied that we have given the adjudicator sufficient powers to enforce the code effectively and during pre-legislative scrutiny we broadened our drafting so that the adjudicator could receive information from any source, giving us a good Bill. At the urging of hon. Members on Second Reading, we tabled amendments in Committee to give her the powers to impose fines from the outset. On Report we proposed additional safeguards in relation to clause 15(11) to cover the Secretary of State’s powers to restrict the information on which the adjudicator can start an investigation.

At every step along the way we have improved the Bill, and we now have a Bill of which the House can be proud. The Government have listened to the concerns of hon. Members from all parties to ensure that we create the most effective adjudicator possible, and we believe that we have now achieved that goal. I am delighted to note that a press release from the grocery market action group on 8 February announced in large letters:

“Fair Trade campaigners say Supermarket Watchdog has teeth.”

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wanted a watchdog with teeth and even brought the visual aids to support that contention on Second Reading.

We have done our work. I believe that we have a good Bill. I commend it to the House. The sooner we get this adjudicator in place, the better it will be for our producers, consumers and retailers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Horsemeat

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on horsemeat in the UK food chain and joint police and Food Standards Agency action.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

The Secretary of State and I are providing the House with very regular reports on the adulteration of processed beef products with horsemeat. As the House will appreciate, it is not possible to give a running commentary on active investigations. Therefore, for operational reasons, we were unable to inform the House of the Food Standards Agency’s plan to enter the two meat premises in west Wales and west Yorkshire earlier this week. As part of its audit of all horse abattoirs in the UK and the ongoing investigation into the adulteration of meat products, the FSA gathered intelligence that led to it and the police entering the two meat premises and seizing horsemeat. The FSA also seized all paperwork from the two companies and is investigating customer lists. The FSA suspended activities at both plants immediately. The FSA will continue to work closely with the police, and if there is evidence of criminal activity, I will expect the full force of the law to be brought down on anyone involved.

I met retailers and suppliers again yesterday, and they confirmed that they are on course to provide meaningful results from product testing by tomorrow. The Secretary of State has made a written ministerial statement today on the outcome of his successful discussions in Europe yesterday. The co-ordinated control plan proposed by the Commission is a welcome step to help address a pan-European problem.

The FSA’s most recent tests for the presence of bute in horses slaughtered in the UK checked 206 horse carcases, and eight came back positive. Three may have entered the food chain in France, and the remaining five have not gone into the food chain. The FSA is working with the French authorities in an attempt to recall the meat from the food chain. I understand—I am sure that the House will be glad to hear this—that the results of bute testing in the withdrawn Findus products have come back negative. The chief medical officer and the chief executive officer of the FSA will be making a statement on both these matters later this morning.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. I am sure the whole House will welcome Tuesday’s raids by the FSA and the police. May I ask him whether all customers of the meat-processing plant have been contacted about the raid and alerted to a potential risk?

I am glad that the FSA is investigating the concerns about horsemeat entering the food chain that I first raised with Ministers last month. Action must be taken to deal with any criminals whose activities have so badly damaged consumer confidence in the UK food industry. I raised the problem of bute-contaminated horsemeat being released into the human food chain with the Minister at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions last month. What action did he take with the FSA to reassure himself after I raised those concerns? Was he aware of bute contamination before that day? Will he explain why, up until four days ago, all horses were being tested for bute in this country but were still being released for human consumption? I am astonished to hear that a further three could have entered the food chain in France, given that I raised this issue with him last month. That is astonishing. We were in the middle of a horsemeat adulteration scandal; this is just catastrophic complacency from him.

It is totally unacceptable that all UK horses were being tested for bute at slaughter but still being released into the human food chain until four days ago. We know that, with more than 9,000 horses slaughtered in the UK for human consumption abroad last year, we must make sure that horsemeat intended for humans is not contaminated with bute—it really is as simple as that. So why did the Minister not act immediately when I raised this issue three weeks ago in this House? Why did he not order full testing, and order that horses should be released only when clear from bute, the moment I raised this with him? We need to know whether the horsemeat entering the UK in these adulterated products contained bute.

Will the Minister tell the House whether the FSA has conducted its own tests on the Findus products to ensure that action can be taken through the criminal courts? Which other countries are testing their horsemeat lasagnes? Which other countries have received those horsemeat lasagnes? We hear from the media that they went to 16 countries, so why have they been withdrawn in only six countries—Britain, Ireland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway? What has happened to the products in the other countries? Has the Minister sought or received reassurances from his EU counterparts that the products have been withdrawn in all EU countries?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State travelled to Brussels for a meeting with his EU counterparts. That arch-Eurosceptic had a damascene conversion to EU labelling regulations on the way. He wants more of them, he wants them quickly and he wants the Commission to hurry up with them—so much speed when his Government have spent the past two years blocking Labour MEPs’ attempts to get better country of origin labelling for processed meats and ready meals. [Interruption.] They do not like hearing it, but they are all keen on it now, Mr Speaker.

[Mary Creagh]

Is there not a danger with the EU testing that the most high-risk products will be withdrawn over the next three weeks and quietly disposed of? Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:

“Nobody had a clue that there was adulteration of beef products”,

yet the Government were told by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that it was testing last November. It seems that he and his colleagues are just totally clueless.

[Mr Heath]

Listening to the hon. Lady, one would fail to understand that probably the biggest investigation into criminal behaviour that has ever been conducted across Europe is going on at the instigation of this Government and as a result of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He instigated the meeting of Farming Ministers of the affected countries and the Commission, established Europol in a co-ordinating role, brought forward the labelling of ingredients for products as an emergency item within the EU, exchanged data at a speed that was never done under the Government whom the hon. Lady supported, brought forward an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health to consider probable thresholds, and got the matter on the agenda for Council on 25 February. That is a quite remarkable achievement in a very short time. The Government are committed to proper investigations based on evidence.

Let me finish with one point raised by the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] If she would stop shouting at me, I will give her the answer. She raised the criminal investigations following her assertions in this House about phenylbutazone. She was repeatedly asked by the Food Standards Agency to share the information she purported to have and she refused to do so. I think that every citizen in this country has a duty to provide evidence to the relevant investigating authorities when there is evidence of potential criminal behaviour.

[Mary Creagh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is not the hon. Lady’s difficulty the fact that in 2006, under the previous Labour Government, changes were made that led to there being no daily inspection presence in meat-cutting premises? As the House and the country listen to the hon. Lady, will they not become increasingly convinced that all this sound and fury is about drumming up shock-horror headlines rather than responsibly contributing to solving the problem?

[Mr Heath]

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. When I hear those on the Opposition Front Bench giving a critical analysis of the very arrangements they put in place as though they had been invented over the past few months, I find it difficult to take some of their criticisms seriously.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My concern is that this scandal is the tip of the iceberg and there is much more to be uncovered about what goes into our food and what is in the meat supply chain. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will learn the lessons from this episode and mount a wider investigation into those issues?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We need to get to the bottom of some of the supply chain issues across Europe. First, we need to deal effectively with the immediate problem, but then we need to stand back and take a long, hard look at some of the other practices. The retailers and processors in this country and across Europe also need to consider how they operate, because I am not convinced that they are as convinced as they ought to be of the provenance of some of their goods.

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

Will my hon. Friend consider the July 2012 veterinary residues committee declaration that the horse passport of any horse treated with phenylbutazone should declare—and should be appropriately signed—that that horse should not enter the food chain? Is it the case, as at that time, that some vets are still prescribing bute without checking the passport or ensuring that the horse is subsequently signed out of the food chain?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. It is absolutely clear that the horse passport should show that a horse has been treated, and that horse is then not put into the food chain if it is inappropriate to do so. As I have looked at the situation, I have become more and more convinced that the horse passport system, which was introduced by the EU and implemented in this country by the previous Government, is not as effective as it should be, by a long way. Once we have dealt with the initial problem, we ought to look at the system again. I want to see an effective record of provenance for horsemeat, just as for any other animal. We have a very good system for cattle and sheep, but for horses the system is inadequate.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The whole House should take seriously the risk of phenylbutazone getting into the food chain. We should therefore be pleased to hear that the test results on one batch have come back negative, but of course there is an awful lot more horsemeat in circulation, some sourced in the UK and some sourced elsewhere. My concern, which I put directly to the Minister, stems from the very good report published by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee today. Where is the testing facility going to be? Is it adequate? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be adequate investment in testing in this country?

[Mr Heath]

In this country, I think we now have the situation under control, but I am concerned that there are third-country imports of horsemeat into the European Union. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has secured an agreement across Europe that there will be bute testing in other countries for horsemeat coming in. It is important to note the chief medical officer’s advice—and the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Science and Technology Committee, will be aware of the importance of this. It is clear that at low levels—and we are talking about low levels in horsemeat—there is a very low risk indeed that bute would cause any harm to health. Nevertheless, we need to eliminate it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I do not resile from the fact that phenylbutazone should not be present in horsemeat that is presented for human consumption; let us be absolutely clear. However, my right hon. Friend is right to say that the actions that have now been put in place—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this moment at Europol and Eurojust in The Hague, securing police and justice co-ordination on this matter—are unprecedented. It is extremely welcome that European authorities are now getting to grips with the problem.

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

It is interesting that the Minister’s attitude has changed since the statement on Monday, when he was at pains to say that there was no risk to public health and that this was an issue of mislabelling and fraud. Clearly, when bute enters the food chain, it is a public health issue, and given that a very small percentage—1%—of carcases were tested, should not the Minister make an apology to the House?

[Mr Heath]

What I said, and have repeatedly said, is that there is no evidence of material that is harmful to human health having been put on sale in this country. That is still the case, and I am very glad that that is the case. We are testing for bute. That is the prime responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. It worries me sometimes that people seem to think that food safety is a secondary issue. It is not. It is the prime responsibility.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the FSA has been able to contact all the businesses and retailers on the customer lists of the two raided properties, one of which is in my constituency?

[Mr Heath]

The FSA is examining the paperwork from those companies at the moment. I understand that some of it is a little difficult to interpret. I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance, because some of the meat present appears to have been unlabelled and therefore its destination is unknown. The FSA and the police are certainly taking every action they can, but at the moment they are examining the paperwork.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my astonishment that Tim Smith, who was chief executive of the FSA until only last year and who is now the technical director in charge of food standards at Tesco, is not only still in his job, but still on the FSA board? Some would say that is not just switching horses, but trying to ride both at the same time.

[Mr Heath]

I have to say that I am impressed by the degree of co-operation we are now seeing from the industry and all food businesses in the testing regime we have put in place, from which we hope to have meaningful results tomorrow. Who works for which company is not a matter for the Government or Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but whether we get results that reassure the public is a matter for us.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given the importance of this issue to all our constituents, will the Minister join me in calling on Her Majesty’s Opposition to work with the Government in the national interest to sort it out, rather than making cheap party political points?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

That would be a result devoutly to be wished.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The beef, lamb and pork sourced in the United Kingdom follows a strict traceability system. Farmers in the United Kingdom have experienced a marked decrease in their incomes over the past 12 months. Can the Minister confirm that costs accrued as a result of the horsemeat scandal will not be passed on to farmers or farming organisations?

[Mr Heath]

I hope that no costs will be directly apportioned to farmers, but the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the assurance schemes we have in this country, and not only those relating to the traceability of our meat, but the various assurances placed on top of that through schemes. I think that we have every reason to be proud of the quality of meat in this country, particularly cut meat, some of which is the best in the world. Of course, farmers in his part of the country play a leading role in providing that quality meat.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In 2006 the Food Fraud Task Force identified the potential problem of food fraud and made 32 recommendations for dealing with it. Can the Minister explain to the House what action the previous Government took to implement any of those recommendations?

[Mr Heath]

I think that I am forbidden to give an opinion on the previous Government’s performance in response, but my hon. Friend will draw his own conclusions from the actions, or lack thereof, that took place at the time.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In answering the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Minister said that there was a problem with horse passports and sought to blame the previous Labour Government for it. Does he remember what he told the House on 17 January? He said:

“The hon. Lady seems to think that there is some difficulty with horse passports. I simply do not think that that is the case. I would happily set out the difference between the route for horses going to slaughter and the routes for others.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 1027.]

Is not that symptomatic of his rather high-handed attitude, which has really irritated people, and does not it explain the Government’s flat-footedness at the beginning of the crisis?

[Mr Heath]

I humbly apologise if the hon. Gentleman is irritated, but I must say that we are continuing to do the work that is required—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister must be heard.

[Mr Heath]

There has been an attempt to bring the national equine database into this matter as though it were a panacea. That is not the case, and I have been consistent in saying so. Those who feel that a national equine database would have improved the situation are sadly mistaken. We need to look at the issue of horse passports, but we do not need to return to an issue that is frankly irrelevant to the situation in hand.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Phenylbutazone, known as bute, can be bought off the internet in tablet form, in injectable form, and as an apple and citrus-flavoured powder. Most horse owners believe that it is the only effective anti-inflammatory drug in controlling joint pain. It is so easy for owners to get hold of it that I wonder what the Minister might have in the way of proposals to ensure that there is some integrity to the system. Does he agree that testing is the only way of identifying the use of this drug?

[Mr Heath]

I do not want to move away from the position that it is crucial to understand: it is the responsibility of those who are selling products and those who are processing products to obey the law, which is very clear that a horse that has had phenylbutazone administered to it should not be entering the food chain. We have a regulatory issue as to whether the horse passport system across Europe is sufficient to meet that task, and that is what we are addressing. It would not be helpful to people who own horses across Europe to say that they cannot use a very useful anti-inflammatory drug; rather, we need to say, “If you do that, don’t put it on people’s plates.”

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), will the Minister now confirm what action he had taken to deal with bute before she raised concerns with him on the Floor of the House on 24 January?

[Mr Heath]

I have already explained that phenylbutazone is a well-known issue and that it is one of the things that is looked for at the point of slaughter, particularly through the horse passport system. I have also said that there may be deficiencies in the horse passport system that we need to address—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is shouting at me from a sedentary position. I do not think that is helpful to a serious discussion of the subject. [Interruption.]

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Neil Carmichael]

With all the cheering, Mr Speaker, I could not quite hear you.

Does the Minister agree that this is really all about the exposure of a very significant deception whereby the rule of law has been broken? Does he also agree that it is important that he has discussions with his European colleagues about bringing in mechanisms to stop it happening again, especially through making sure that the supply chain is properly transparent?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman summates the whole position very well. The most important thing is to have effective investigation, to find the evidence, and on the basis of that evidence, to take action, and that is what we are doing.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister for a simple answer to a simple question: when did he order that horse carcases should be released from abattoirs after they had been found to be clean of bute? [Interruption.]

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) says helpfully, “It’s in the folder.” [Interruption.] We have had rather a lot of dates in our heads in this unfolding situation, and I make no apologies for not being able to give—[Interruption.] I cannot find the date in here. I am not going to give the hon. Lady a wrong answer; I will find it and tell her later.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Looking to the future, we really have to put the consumer at the heart of food safety and food health. When we bring forward the review of EU labelling, can we ensure that my constituents are able to understand what is in their food and do not need a degree in food science to know what they are eating?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point—that food labelling is supposed to help, not confuse the consumer. That is why we are trying to make sure that the food labelling system is not only accurate—that goes without saying—but that it gives people information that is useful, not confusing. There will be talk about excluding information that, frankly, simply confuses the consumer. We have a consultation at the moment about the labelling of mince. I do not think it is helpful to call mince sold in this country as it always has been anything other than mince. I think that that is helpful to the consumer, not unhelpful.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Although the whole House will welcome the Minister’s belated recognition of the importance of horse passports, may I suggest that he talks to the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government, who have been looking at this issue for some time and who recognise the importance of accurate passporting to control the movement of horses across Wales?

[Mr Heath]

We regularly speak to our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I spoke only yesterday to my ministerial counterpart in Wales. We regularly exchange information on these matters and come to common views wherever possible.

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

Food safety and quality is an international matter and we need collaboration across borders. When criminal activity is involved, Europol has a particularly important role to play. Will the Minister ensure that we identify where this horsemeat came from in order to verify, for instance, that it was not slaughtered on unlicensed premises?

[Mr Heath]

That is why we need a European-wide criminal investigation and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at The Hague today talking to Europol. Europol can act only if requested to do so by member states, and the UK has made such a request, in company with Mr Le Foll, the French Minister. That is why it is proceeding and I think that that will add a lot of co-ordination to what otherwise might be a fragmented police investigation.

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

It is reported in today’s press that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland told the FSA about its concerns in November 2012. I ask the Minister again: when were Ministers first told about this problem? Perhaps the answer is in his folder, if he would care to look at it.

[Mr Heath]

We have said all along that there is co-ordination between the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the FSA. We have also said—the hon. Lady can look back at the record of it—that the Irish were not acting on the basis of an intelligence-led operation, so there was no prior information. They did spot checks and told us that they were going to do so. As soon as they had confirmed results, they told the FSA and the FSA told Ministers. That is all a matter of record.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

Confidence in the food supply chain is key and it is retailers who bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of the food they sell. What assurances has my hon. Friend sought from retailers about the integrity of the supply chain networks?

[Mr Heath]

That is very much the basis of our discussions with them over the past couple of weeks. Indeed, such discussions took place yesterday and earlier in the week. We are absolutely clear that retailers bear the legal responsibility. When I say retailers, that should be extended to all food businesses, such as caterers. They must be confident in the integrity of their supply chains. We will do everything we can to provide regulatory support for that, so that cases in which they are defrauded are brought to light. The crux is that they must have both assured provenance and a testing regime in their own companies so that they can, with confidence, tell consumers that the meat on their shelves is both what they say it is and safe.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the work that is being done at a European level, especially through Europol. Does he agree, therefore, that it is deeply ironic—in fact, it is profoundly worrying—that at this very time the Government are considering a mass opt-out from European justice and home affairs provisions, including the work of Europol?

[Mr Heath]

I can only say that at the moment we have the services of Europol. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is using those services very effectively. He is leading that request today and we will make sure that on a pan-European basis we deal with what is a pan-European issue.

May I reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? She asked for a date, but I did not want to give her the wrong one, because my memory may be fallible. It was Monday 11 February.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

What my constituents want to know is simply whether it is safe to eat processed beef products that are currently on sale. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has spread huge fear by saying that she would not eat products that are currently on sale. What is the advice of the chief medical officer and the independent Food Standards Agency on this matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The advice is very clear. All the testing that has taken place has failed to find evidence of food that is a danger to human health. Therefore, the clear advice is that there is no reason to change shopping habits on the basis of concerns about health. I prefer people to take their own decisions on these matters on the basis of evidence and information. That is an individual decision and it is not helpful for people to pretend that there is a massive food health scare if there is not, and nor is it helpful for people to give reassurances that are not supported by evidence.

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

I am amazed that the Minister could not remember what happened on Monday, given that it was only three days ago. In the last year, a large number of horses have been slaughtered in UK abattoirs for meat. What estimate has his Department made of the occurrence of bute in those horses?

[Mr Heath]

That is precisely what the FSA is testing and producing results on. As I have said, the chief medical officer will be giving a statement about that later this morning.

The hon. Gentleman says that he is amazed that I cannot remember what happened on Monday. I can remember what happened on Monday, but I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and give a date if I might find that I have mistakenly misled the House. I would prefer to give correct information to the House than wrong information. I am sorry if that offends Members.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents in Kettering will be surprised at the extent to which meat products are cut, processed and reprocessed back and forth across so many international borders. Might one of the benefits of this episode be that consumers value local farmers markets that provide high-quality meats sourced from local farmers?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I hope that people value locally sourced produce, and there is evidence that they do so. People value local butchers shops that know the provenance of the produce. They also value the quality assurance schemes that we have in this country, which indicate a high quality of produce.

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

Families in Basildon and Thurrock have been defrauded in the food that they have bought. Does the Minister share my anger that the retailers have allowed that to happen?

[Mr Heath]

We should all be outraged that people have been given meat that is not as described on the packet. The Government stand four-square with the consumer who goes into the shop and buys the product, and say, “This will not do.” It is unacceptable and those who have allowed it to happen, whether through insufficient checking or criminal activity, must be brought to book.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

People across west Yorkshire will be outraged that horsemeat has entered the food chain labelled as beef. Will the Minister reassure consumers that the individuals who are carrying out this criminal activity will be prosecuted?

[Mr Heath]

Ministers cannot give assurances on what the police and investigatory authorities will do. It is certainly my wish that wherever there is evidence of criminal activity, it is put before the courts and the people responsible are prosecuted and face the full force of the law.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for the Labour party to criticise the testing regime that we inherited from it is pure, naked opportunism?

[Mr Heath]

There is an awful lot of opportunism around at the moment.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Many British farmers are concerned by those who are touring the TV studios at the moment saying that they would not eat any beef products in this country. What does the Minister think retailers, who have ultimate responsibility for ensuring food safety, should be doing to reassure their consumers?

[Mr Heath]

In the first instance, what they should be doing is exactly what they are doing at our request: testing every processed beef product that they have on their shelves and sharing with us the results so that we can provide advice independently, through the FSA, on the level of substitution that has occurred. However, they have to go further than that and examine their supply chains. They have to be able to reassure their customers of the value of the systems that they have in place, and I hope that having taken the initial action, they will soon be in a position to do exactly that and to tell every person who walks through the doors of their stores where a product comes from and that it has been tested and is what it says it is.

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

The fact is that we have the most fantastic food and agriculture industry in this country, and confidence is key to it. Does the Minister agree that the headline-grabbing hysteria of Opposition Front Benchers does nothing to help the confidence that this great British industry requires?

[Mr Heath]

I am not going to criticise anyone for expressing proper concerns on behalf of their constituents, but I will criticise those who peddle part-truths or untruths, which is profoundly unhelpful. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) expresses surprise, but the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) had to come back and apologise only this week for saying something grossly wrong about the number of horses unaccounted for in Ulster.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify that it was the changes put in place in 2006 that took away the daily inspection presence in meat-cutting premises?

[Mr Heath]

This is one of the problems—apparently the world only started in 2010 and all the things that were done before then did not count, and apparently the system that was in place in 2010 was so perfect that it has only been downhill since. That is not a credible position, and those who purport to speak for the people of this country should come up with a credible position.

Point of Order

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight. He is right that I received last Friday the names of three UK companies suspected as passing off horse as beef. I immediately e-mailed and wrote to the Secretary of State, on that day, offering to share the information with him. I received a response from him on Monday asking me to hand it over. He was obviously unaware that I had already handed it over to the FSA on Saturday, and that it had reassured me that it was already in possession of those names. Will he now withdraw the disgraceful slur and apologise to me?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have here the e-mail exchange between the FSA’s director of operations and the hon. Lady. He repeatedly requests further information and evidence on the comments that she made in the House, and her reply is:

“I am very anxious to protect my source from any repercussions.”

She then seeks to bargain with the FSA for further information before releasing her information. I am happy to put that into the public domain if it would help, but I think my comments were entirely justified.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said that was that, and Members can pursue the matter in other forums if they wish. I am grateful to Members for their co-operation.

Common Agricultural Policy Reform

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) for securing this debate, because it is extremely timely? We are about to enter probably the most intensive period of debate in Europe on common agricultural policy. There were doubts about whether we would have agreement on the overall EU budget, but that is now in place and was agreed last week. The Agriculture Committee in the European Parliament voted on its amendments last month, and I am optimistic that we will secure an agreement on CAP reform during the Irish presidency. My hon. Friend raised that point and it is important not least because we do not want our agricultural businesses and farmers to have a prolonged period of uncertainty. They need to know exactly where we are.

My hon. Friend set out to some extent the broad parameters of last week’s deal in which the Prime Minister secured a reduction in the CAP of €55 billion—13% less than the current budget. We do not need to be apologetic that we have sought a reduction in the overall budget of the European Union, as that is consonant with what taxpayers and national Governments across the European Union are experiencing. We also do not need to be apologetic that it will have consequences for the size of the agriculture budget, as no sector can be entirely immune from the process. The key is to ensure that the available funds are used in the most effective way to support agriculture across the United Kingdom.

Although my hon. Friend was concerned, I see the additional flexibility of the 50% potential transfer from the pillar one budget to pillar two as a key part of that support. He mentioned the importance of high-level environmental schemes, and I want to ensure that those continue, because they have enormous value not only for the United Kingdom but for our wider environmental responsibilities. I also believe that our rural programmes are of enormous value and want to ensure that they are still intact. My hon. Friend’s concern is whether the transfer will effectively move money out of farming and into another pot. I understand that and perhaps we need to define better our terms for pillar two and pillar one.

For instance, the definition of greening measures is very important in determining whether they lie in pillar two or pillar one, and whether there is, in effect, a transfer of funding from pillar two to pillar one that compensates for money going in the other direction. I will go on to discuss greening in a moment, but if we had a process under which other member states were required to consider what they could do to introduce in their agricultural systems environmental support schemes such as those in this country, that would improve not only the comparative competitiveness of our industry, but the environment, and most people in this country would like to see that.

What are the Government’s priorities? Of course, we want to negotiate a good deal for farmers, for taxpayers and for consumers. What about in the long run? I do not resile from the view—this is the Government’s clear policy—that we want a common agricultural policy that continues to orientate itself to the market, that increases the international competitiveness of EU agriculture, let alone our own, and that increases the capacity to deliver environmental outcomes. Ultimately, we want an efficient and responsive agricultural sector in the EU and globally, and we want the future CAP to help to achieve that. That is why it is really important that the CAP continues on the path of reform and that we reduce, in the long run, our reliance on direct subsidy.

My hon. Friend asked about the extent to which we involve the priorities of the devolved Administrations in what we argue for, and I can tell him that we involve them fundamentally. It is really important that we hear what every part of the UK agriculture has to say about CAP reform, which is why we devote a great deal of time, both at official and ministerial level, to listening to the devolved Administrations and securing, as far as we can, a common UK position, on the basis of which we then negotiate.

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

I am reassured to hear the Minister say that he will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on this issue. However, I wish to put on the record the fact that the Scottish Government’s top priority has been ensuring that a fair proportion of the allocation comes to Scottish farmers. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who has led the debate so ably this afternoon, pointed out the disparities between the different beneficiaries of this policy; a level playing field just does not exist at the moment.

[Mr Heath]

However, there is of course a difference between the distribution per farm and the distribution per hectare. Scotland has a distorting factor, because there are very large holdings that are “lightly farmed”; these holdings sometimes fall within a definition that I know the Scottish Minister is keen to look at to see whether they are actively farmed at all. There are specific issues to address there.

I spent the past two days in Scotland talking to Scottish farmers and to Scottish Ministers, and I was there last week. As I say, we do listen carefully, for instance on the issue relating to the highlands, the definition of permanent pasture and how heather is treated. We have now secured a workable definition, which includes heather. That is important for Scotland and for Scottish agriculture, and it was secured by the negotiations in which we took part. I assure hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom that we take that matter seriously and we continue to listen.

Let me give another example. In Scotland, coupled payments are still a key part of the distribution mechanism, whereas they are not in the rest of the UK. Therefore, the fact that we can provide some cover within the national ceiling from, in effect, an English contribution to enable Scotland to persist with its schemes is important.

[Dr Whiteford]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I have given way once to the hon. Lady, and as the debate was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire I really need to answer the points he raised.

Let us examine some of the other issues. The first is greening, on which we still have a lot to negotiate. The one thing that all member states were agreed on was that Commissioner Ciolos’s initial thoughts were not the answer. They were far too prescriptive and far too inappropriate in many areas. They displayed a lack of recognition that hugely different farming procedures are used, even in various parts of this country, let alone in the wider European family. What we want is a continued orientation of the CAP towards rewarding farmers for the public goods they deliver, which includes environmental benefits and protecting and enhancing wildlife, but not in a form that is over-bureaucratic and over-demanding in implementation, which may result in a tick-box mentality that does not help the environment and certainly does not help farming.

We believe that some of the proposals simply do not represent good value, whereas some of our existing agri-environmental schemes do. I hope everyone agrees that what we need is flexibility to allow local definition of environmental benefits and schemes that do not force people into inappropriate farming practices. I am hopeful that we will secure that degree of flexibility, but we should not take it for granted. The other thing we do not want is duplication, so that people are paid twice for doing precisely the same thing. There is a risk that the outcome of some of the European Parliament proposals will be farmers being paid once under pillar two and once under pillar one for doing exactly what they are doing now. I doubt our taxpayers would thank us for that. It is important that we reach a successful outcome.

My hon. Friend mentioned George Lyon, who is one of the beacons of common sense on the European Parliament Agriculture Committee. I have worked closely with him, and we certainly want to continue to do so in the future.

Our concerns in relation to intervention in the market have been well rehearsed. We have been clear over the years about our desire to reduce the reliance on trade-distorting measures and the importance of the CAP sticking to that path of reform. That is where we part company with the European Parliament Agriculture Committee, because many of the amendments voted through there would move us backwards, away from market orientation, and increase budget pressures for old-style market support. There is a place for recognition of the need to support some farmers, especially hill farmers and those in less-favoured areas. I stress that and argue in favour of doing that, but when it comes to providing subsidy for European farmers to start growing tobacco again and get taxpayers’ money to do so, I draw the line, because that is clearly not in the interest of taxpayers or of the EU.

[Roger Williams]

The key issue is flexibility on modulation to allow some countries—people think the UK will be one of them—to move money from pillar one to pillar two, while other countries move money from pillar two to pillar one, thereby further disadvantaging UK farming.

[Mr Heath]

As I said, what we want is flexibility to find the right solutions for our farmers. At one point, my hon. Friend praised high-level agri-environmental schemes, and we want those to continue. We may need that flexibility to ensure that we can achieve that within our pillar two framework, but at the same time I want the level playing field with other countries that he seeks, so that they do some of the same things that we do, and do well, in their domestic agriculture. I am not convinced that they are doing that yet. The thrust of our argument is: yes, we want public money to support public good, but we do not want public money to support distortions of trade and agricultural production which result in a regression across the EU.

I am clear that to achieve that we need flexibility not only in definitions, but in being able to move cash between headings. We need to make sure that we have an appropriate period of transition—it would be disastrous for British agriculture were we to move too fast and in too rigid a way to a solution that is not appropriate for many of our farmers. We need to make sure that the implementation period is sufficiently long to allow an orderly transition, so that we do not repeat the chaos of 2005 with the Rural Payments Agency—I am determined that we will not do that again. Most of all, we need to listen to what our agriculture industry needs, relate that to what our taxpayer needs in value for money, and make sure that we have prosperous and sustainable agriculture right across the UK in the future. That is what we are trying to achieve from CAP reform, and I believe it is possible to do so, but I do not underestimate the difficulties in reaching a successful conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.