Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

As my hon. Friend knows, the CAP negotiations are getting particularly intense at the moment. I have taken her comments on board and will bear them in mind as we draw nearer a conclusion.

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

I very much welcome the progress being made towards ending the scandal of fish discards, but is the Minister aware of the dramatic recent falls in fish prices and does he share my concern that certain sections of the media are representing our sustainable fishing industry in a grossly irresponsible way?

[Richard Benyon]

My time in post has shown me that large areas of the media have no interest in understanding the complexities of marine management, so I share the hon. Lady’s concern. I can assure her that I am very concerned, particularly about the drop in the cod price, which I know will affect livelihoods in her constituency. We want a fair price for a sustainably harvested product, and everything that my Department is trying to do, with the devolved Governments, is working towards that.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the markets in which the supermarkets operate, but does he at least concede that the power imbalance between the supermarket and the supplier is often very unfair, and that supermarkets have consistently pushed the costs and risks of doing business on to the supplier at the end of the food chain?

[Philip Davies]

No, I do not agree with that at all. I will come on to this point in a bit more detail soon, but the hon. Lady is forgetting something. The big supermarkets, without a shadow of a doubt, are massive companies that have hundreds of stores in their chains. By definition, a viable supplier to a supermarket chain has to be a very big company as well, otherwise it would not have the wherewithal to supply all the supermarket’s branches. When I get to the detail of my new clauses, I will talk about the thresholds that the Bill should apply. She will see that far from it being the case that vast supermarkets are being awful to very small suppliers, many of the suppliers are bigger than the supermarkets that they are supplying. She ought to bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this subject.

If people want to transfer money to suppliers either, in their idealistic world, from supermarkets or, in the real world, from their constituents, and if they think that a price worth paying, let them say so. If they reject my new clauses, however, I want them to be clear with their constituents about whom they are benefiting as a result of higher prices and who they will be paying their higher prices to. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) listed a few of them, but I will give a more extensive list, with your permission, Mr Speaker. We are talking about companies such as Esso, which supplies petrol to supermarkets. Do supporters of the Bill really want to help Esso, which is far bigger than any supermarket chain? Is the purpose of the Bill to enable Esso to go along with its complaint to the adjudicator, so that the adjudicator can faff about looking at a complaint from Esso about Tesco or Asda? Is that what the Bill is all about?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument, to which I am listening carefully, seems to have been predicated on the premise that there is no problem, so why on earth would there be a problem between these big corporations?

[Philip Davies]

I will try to put it more simply for the hon. Lady’s benefit: I do not agree with the Bill, as I think I made abundantly clear—I did not want to mislead anybody. If we are to have a Bill, however, I want it to focus on the people I think she had in mind when she decided to support the Bill. If anybody wants to intervene and say that when they had the idea of supporting the Bill, the first company they had in mind was Esso, let them do so.

Common Agricultural Policy Reform

Eilidh Whiteford 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.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

European Pig Industry

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this important debate. He described me as a pig farmer, but I ought to say that that slightly overstates the case. I had four pedigree Tamworth sows. I do not think that quite constitutes a farm. It does mean, however, that I have farrowed a pig and got my hands dirty, so perhaps I have some affinity with the industry.

The provisions in the EU pig welfare directive, which bans the use of sow stalls from 1 January, represent a significant welfare advance across the EU. It has been a long time coming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said, although it does not level the playing field entirely, as European pig producers, unlike UK producers, will still be allowed to keep sows in close-confinement stalls for the first four weeks after service, it means that when all member states achieve full compliance there will be far greater parity for UK producers—provided that we have that full compliance. The hon. Member for South Norfolk probably knows the old saying, “Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you, but pigs is equal.” UK pigs are not quite equal at the moment and that is what we need to achieve.

It is very disappointing that so many member states were not fully compliant with the sow stall ban on 1 January, particularly as it is the second of Europe’s flagship animal welfare measures on which there has been large-scale non-compliance across Europe. The first, as the hon. Gentleman said, was the ban on the keeping of hens in conventional battery cages, which came into force in January 2012.

The UK pig industry is understandably extremely concerned that non-compliance across Europe will continue to disadvantage UK producers who went through the process of investing heavily in converting to group housing systems to comply with the UK’s unilateral sow stall ban in 1999. I assure hon. Members that I recognise and share the industry’s concern about non-compliance. We have been working very closely with it over the last year and it is extremely frustrating that we have been unable to achieve compliance across the EU on a ban that was agreed almost 12 years ago.

I also recognise that non-compliance is a huge challenge for the Commission and some other member states. We are continuing to work to ensure that the ban is fully and effectively implemented across the European Union as quickly as possible. That is essential to avoid damaging compliant businesses and to demonstrate that the EU can deliver agreed long-term policy.

As the hon. Member for South Norfolk shared with the House, the Commission reported at the Council of Ministers on Monday that 17 member states are not compliant with the sow stall ban. The figures are changing rapidly, but as at mid-January 10 member states were more than 90% compliant, three were less than 90% compliant and four were less than 75% compliant, so there is certainly an issue. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, the problem is—we should stress this—that the Commission could not take any action until the ban was in force. So we are starting from where we are now.

At the Council of Ministers on Monday, Commissioner Borg demanded that member states provide regular updates of progress with implementation. That goes quite a long way towards what the hon. Member for South Norfolk was saying about a clear map of progress towards full implementation. Commissioner Borg urged member states to apply dissuasive sanctions to non-compliant producers and we will have to wait and see what exactly they comprise. Most importantly, he said that he will commence formal infraction proceedings against non-compliant member states at the end of February. That is quite quick action on the part of the Commission compared with what sometimes happens.

The Commission has held two stakeholder meetings to discuss compliance and enforcement, the most recent this Monday. Commission officials remarked on the rate of progress with compliance in the last couple of months and put the onus squarely on the competent authorities in member states to take tough action against non-compliant producers.

What are the Government doing? We are using every opportunity to press the Commission to take a firm stand, as the priority must be to protect producers across the whole EU from illegal production. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Commissioner Borg on 17 January and raised our concerns about non-compliance. At the Council of Ministers on Monday, the Secretary of State led a call for the Commission to pursue a level playing field vigorously, so that compliant producers are not disadvantaged by inaction elsewhere in Europe.

I will be clear: enforcement on imported pigmeat is challenging. There are no marketing rules to prevent imports from non-compliant systems. The Government thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK import ban on egg and egg products at the end of 2011—I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire has some recollection of that—because at that time it was clear that many member states would not be compliant with the conventional cage ban. It was not a realistic option for eggs, however, and I fear it is not an option for pork and pork products either, because of the legal and financial implications of introducing such a ban and the practical difficulties of enforcing it. The Commission has repeatedly made it clear that it will not allow member states to impose unilateral trade restrictions for welfare reasons, so we have to rely heavily on the competent authority in each member state to take responsibility for ensuring that their producers comply with the directive.

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

Does the Minister agree that retailers and supermarkets have a huge responsibility? We have seen in the past two weeks that when they want to clean up their supply chain quickly, they can do it. Why can they not do the same for pigmeat and eggs?

[Mr Heath]

I agree, and I was coming to that point.

The UK relies heavily on imports, being only 40% self-sufficient in pigmeat and 20% self-sufficient in bacon. Denmark and the Netherlands are the largest suppliers of pigmeat to the UK; both countries are more than 90% compliant and are already taking tough action against non-compliant producers. I have spoken to the Danes and the Dutch and I believe that they are serious about reaching full compliance, so the major importers to the UK will come into compliance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

[Richard Benyon]

I had a meeting with the pelagic sector yesterday, at which I assured it that we would take every measure that we possibly could. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the UK fleet has done the right thing despite the fact that the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was based on the activities of countries such as Iceland and the Faroes. I am absolutely with her, and we will do our best next week in Brussels to ensure that the Commission understands how important the matter is to Britain.

EU Fisheries Negotiations

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

We achieved an increase in the quotas for sole and plaice in my hon. Friend’s area and a roll-over of the sprat quota, which was due for a big cut. Those are all valuable fisheries for her constituents. I am gratified that fishermen in her area are part of our trial for more financial support for the under-10 metre fleet in the coming year.

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

There is much to welcome in the Minister’s statement. I commend him and the devolved Ministers for their efforts in recent weeks. I, too, want to press the Minister on the mackerel dispute, which is still at an impasse. Will he give an assurance that he will reject the Commission’s proposals for reductions in mackerel quotas next week at the EU-Norway talks, because that would simply reward Iceland and the Faroes for destructive overfishing and fail to pull them back to the negotiating table?

[Richard Benyon]

I am sure that the hon. Lady, like me, wants to ensure that we stay resolute in our determination to follow the science. We have a political issue to sort out with the mackerel problem and that can be done only by getting Iceland and the Faroes back round the table. I do not want the United Kingdom to fish the last mackerel out of the sea. We want to ensure that the stock remains sustainable. I feel very unhappy about the impact that this situation could be having on her constituents and on those whom I have met in Lerwick and in other places where mackerel is an important fishery. We want to ensure that Iceland and the Faroes play ball, but we cannot allow this stock to be fished unsustainably.

Fisheries

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Ms Clark, for calling me to speak, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing this debate.

I begin my remarks this afternoon by paying tribute to those killed or injured at sea in the fishing industry during the last 12 months, and I echo the sentiments that have been made by others about health and safety in the industry. Earlier this year, it was my privilege to present Royal Humane Society awards to four of my constituents—James Hendry, James McKay, Ewan Lambert and their skipper, James Buchan—from the Fraserburgh boat Renown, who showed exceptional courage and presence of mind in rescuing their crewmate, Billy Stephen, when he fell overboard off the coast of Norway last year. The ceremony at the Fishermen’s Mission building in Fraserburgh brought home once again the daily perils faced by our fishermen and put an all too human face on the dangers of fishing in a hostile marine environment. I pay tribute to those men today, and to all those who risk their lives at sea; to those who are serving in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; to our coastguards; and to those in the Fishermen’s Mission charity, which provides so much support to families in our fishing communities.

Our debate this afternoon takes place against the backdrop of ongoing annual negotiations, and in the context of some very serious challenges facing all parts of the fishing industry. However, the debate is overshadowed by the ongoing legal wrangles over the cod recovery plan and the increasingly complicated and protracted negotiations over the failed common fisheries policy—and let us not forget the ongoing mackerel dispute.

I have always believed that fishing has the potential to be an inherently sustainable industry, whereby a renewable marine resource that provides us with healthy, nutritious food is harvested responsibly, creating jobs and supporting a vibrant economy. I believe that there is a commitment across this House and in all parts of the industry towards sustainability based on scientific evidence. However, sustainability is not just about our marine environment and fish stocks; it is also about the sustainability of our fishing industry and the coastal communities that depend on it. We must continue to build on the significant and steady progress that has been made in recent years to conserve stocks, harvest them sustainably and reduce discards, but we also have to tackle the intransigence of decision-making processes in the EU that do not have long-term sustainability at their heart.

Undoubtedly, the biggest threat to the sustainability of both our fish stocks and our fishing industry at the moment comes from the EU’s cod recovery plan, because of its impact on how we fish other stocks in a mixed fishery. There is a widespread recognition among scientists, fishermen and even members of the European Commission that the plan is seriously flawed and will not deliver its conservation objectives, but the review that was promised by the EU Commissioner for spring did not materialise until September, which means we could be well into next year before any changes to the plan come into effect.

There is now an unseemly squabble between different institutions in Europe about who has the right to propose amendments and technical conservation measures. So while the lawyers get rich, our whitefish fleet is left hanging, with our fishermen wondering how much fishing opportunity they will get next year and whether they can even stay in business.

Our fishermen have led the way in cod conservation. The cod stock in the North sea has more than doubled during the last six years and discard rates have halved in the past three years. That is substantial and significant progress—led, to a large extent, by the fishermen themselves—and we are seeing steady improvement in the cod stocks, and are on course to have a sustainable cod fishery in the North sea by 2015.

The proposal in the cod recovery plan to impose a 20% cut in the cod quota next year would be absolutely disastrous, both for fishermen and for conservation. It would actually increase discarding again, because the cod is recovering—it is ever more plentiful in the North sea—and in a mixed fishery it is increasingly hard to avoid cod by-catch. If fishermen have no quota to land that cod, it will end up back in the sea. That will make the catch quota scheme unviable and it will undermine the efforts to put the fishery on a sustainable footing.

A strong scientific case has been made for a roll-over of North sea cod quota this coming year, which would help conservation and continue the steady progress that has been made towards achieving recovery by 2015. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to set out what he sees as the prospect of getting a common-sense agreement on this issue in Europe, and offer assurances that this issue will be right at the top of his priority list in the negotiations.

In the very brief time available to me, I also want to address the vexed issue of mackerel. The greater part of the UK pelagic fleet is based in Fraserburgh and Peterhead; I think that the rest is based largely in Orkney and Shetland. Mackerel is—by a very considerable margin—our most valuable stock. The pelagic fishery directly supports not only fishermen but literally hundreds of jobs in my constituency, in processing, distribution, retail and other sectors. It also provides a whole range of indirect support to the local economy.

The dispute over mackerel has now been raging for more than four years. Back in 2005, Iceland caught only 363 tonnes of mackerel, but in 2012 it awarded itself a unilateral quota of 145,000 tonnes. We are now in a situation where Iceland is currently taking 22% of the total allowable catch recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and the Faroes are taking 23%. That is completely arbitrary, wholly disproportionate and absolutely unacceptable.

Overfishing by Iceland and the Faroes is damaging the mackerel stocks, and the ICES advice that was published in September recommends a 15% cut in the total allowable catch for next year. Meanwhile, the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation that our pelagic industry worked so hard to secure has been suspended, because of the irresponsible fishing by the Icelandic and Faroese. The Faroese have even been accused of inviting foreign boats into their waters to fish their self-awarded quota because they do not have the capacity to fish those quantities themselves.

The most bitter irony of this situation, which I can assure Members is not lost on fishermen in the north-east, is that the science suggests that the expansion of the mackerel stock into Icelandic and Faroese waters in recent years has largely been a consequence of the responsible fishing practices of the Scottish and Norwegian fleets. However, the European Commission now wants to impose a further cut in mackerel quota, over and above the 15% cut recommended by the ICES advice, to compensate for the overfishing by Iceland and the Faroes. In other words, the Commission is seriously proposing penalising our fishermen for fishing responsibly and sustainably, while in effect rewarding the bad behaviour of Iceland and the Faroes by letting them fish with impunity.

If we actively reward Iceland and the Faroes in that way for their unsustainable fishing, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to stop. There is no reason for them to come back to the negotiating table, and there is every reason for them to continue the destructive fishing practices that are causing real damage to the mackerel stocks and making a complete mockery of international conservation efforts.

This issue does not just affect the pelagic fleet. There is a detrimental knock-on impact on those whitefish vessels that historically have fished in Faroese waters; again, some of those vessels are from my own constituency. It puts more pressure on our west coast fishing grounds and it displaces efforts back into the North sea. It also has real implications for processors all down the east coast, as I am sure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) will attest.

The European Commission has stalled repeatedly over trade sanctions on Iceland and the Faroes, and it is now asking our fishermen to pay the price. It is proposing a preposterous solution that will exacerbate the problem and not resolve it. I know that the Minister wants to see a resolution to this situation, but I impress on him the urgency of this matter and ask what action the Government now plan to take to bring Iceland and the Faroes back around the table.

Before I conclude, I quickly want to make a couple of points about regionalisation and the CFP reform process. I know that the Minister is as keen as I am to secure meaningful regionalisation in the negotiations. However, I have some very real concerns about some of the compromise amendments proposed by the European Parliament rapporteur. One of them would establish a centralised approach to the management of fishing concessions, which is far removed from the regionalisation agenda. Does the Minister agree that it is important that member states retain the competence to design their own systems, within the requirements of EU law? And will the Government press that point?

There is also a crazy amendment proposing a mandatory closure of 10% of member states’ territorial waters for at least five years. It is not based on science or any understanding of the marine ecosystem, but it could gain currency. Again, I seek the Minister’s assurance that he will oppose this amendment in the strongest terms.

Lastly, there is very strong language in the rapporteur’s text about reducing capacity. Does the Minister agree that capacity is a red herring and is not the issue? The issue is how much fish is actually caught, and what we really need is a well-managed system in which discards are minimised.

I am conscious that I only have a few seconds left to speak. I wish the Minister well in the negotiations, and I hope that he comes back with a good deal for our fishermen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Both those elements are essential, but I do not want to name and shame specific supermarkets, however tempting that might be. I want all major supermarket chains to behave in a fair and transparent way as far as their suppliers are concerned. There are signs that that is happening not only in the dairy sector, but in other produce sectors.

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

The supply chain practices affecting our dairy industry affect other livestock producers, perhaps none more so than our pig producers, which are close to the Minister’s heart. Pigs are being sold well below the cost of production. Given VION’s announcements last week, what will the Minister do to ensure a future for the pig industry?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that I am interested in the pig sector, having bred pigs myself. She will know that we cannot disguise the cyclical nature of the pig industry. Having said that, I am concerned about the current position, but there are signs of progress. Some supermarkets are now prepared to share risk in the pigmeat sector, which I want to encourage.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, and I commend the Government on introducing these measures and making such good progress with the Bill.

There is general agreement among Members that effective measures to protect producers in supermarket supply chains are long overdue, and that the groceries code adjudicator is a step in the right direction. The issues we have to grapple with now are whether the Government’s proposals will achieve what they set out to achieve and whether the adjudicator will have sufficiently sharp teeth to be an effective regulator.

If I have one overarching concern about the Bill it is that the establishment of a groceries code adjudicator will not serve to address the underlying problems of the concentration of power in groceries supply chains and the dominance of a handful of large supermarkets. Indeed, it is not designed to do that. The groceries code adjudicator will not tackle in any fundamental way the huge power imbalance in these supply chains between producers, processors and retailers, but it could, perhaps, tackle some of the symptoms of these underlying issues, and redress some of the worst imbalances, at least to some extent. The adjudicator will only be able to do so, however, if it has real sanctions at its disposal and the confidence of producers.

These are not new problems. Farmers and food producers have complained for years about the way in which supermarket supply chains operate. The specifics change, but the refrain has been the same for at least 20 years: smaller-scale producers, including some farmers in my constituency, secure a contract with a large supermarket and invest in creating jobs and new equipment, only to find that the goalposts shift very quickly. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) just recounted from his own experience, as time goes by an unsustainable squeeze is put on them, whether through the imposition of lower margins or changed specifications, or through late payments, demands for the producer to fund promotions or retrospective changes to the terms and conditions of their contract. In short, the risks and the costs are pushed down the supply chain. Those at the sharp end of primary production find they have little negotiating power in a supply chain in which a handful of large retailers and processors reap a disproportionate share of the profit.

I am glad that the proposals will tackle discretionary pricing and the shifting sands in supplier contracts, but the measures need to be enforceable. This evening’s debate has rightly focused on the efficacy and enforcement of the code of conduct and whether reputational risk will be a sufficient deterrent to curb the worst excesses of retailers’ behaviour towards suppliers. I appreciate that any new powers may have unintended consequences, and that we need to ensure that any new scheme does not backfire on consumers, but we must also acknowledge that this has been a long-standing problem. We must appreciate, too, that it is a structural problem. These imbalances have not arisen just in the last couple of years. They have existed for decades, and we must not miss this opportunity to tackle the problems in the supply chain.

We must recognise that these problems have already done considerable damage to our farming communities, and that they are continuing to do damage and are making our processing sector very vulnerable. If we are serious about food security and enabling our primary producers to continue to farm and produce the food we need, we must understand the pressures they face and take them a lot more seriously.

The disturbing and disappointing news breaking this evening that Vion is pulling out of the UK illustrates all too keenly the fragile nature of our food supply chains and the pressure our food producers and processors face in the current economic climate. Some 13,000 people across the UK work for Vion, including more than 130 in my constituency at Strath of Brydock. I know Members across the House will share my concern about the uncertainty facing the employees of Vion, and I ask the Minister to give us an assurance this evening that everything possible will be done to ensure continuity in those Vion plants across the UK, and that the Government will be working very hard to find buyers for the businesses.

The problems in the supply chain are one of the factors that give rise to the problems food processors face, and addressing them is one of the objectives of the Bill. This evening’s news about Vion is very unfortunate, but it should serve to concentrate our minds on why we so desperately need an effective groceries code adjudicator. This is not a debate about an abstract topic; real people’s jobs and lives are at stake.

We should not forget the negotiations on the common agricultural policy. Many farm businesses in my constituency would not be economically viable were it not for pillar one support. Many jobs in the processing sector would be completely unsustainable without that support. I gather from debates in recent weeks that the Government think that there is a case for reducing CAP support to our farmers. Unless we have effective measures to influence supply chains, that is not viable and it will put undue pressure on our rural communities and farmers who are going through difficult times, given the wider economic context in which they are trying to trade. An adjudicator needs proper powers if they are to be able to rise to the challenge of sustainable food production in the years ahead.

Many people say that the problem with voluntary codes is that they do not stand the test of time, and tend to be eroded or watered down once media attention disappears. As public attention wanes on issues such as the situation of dairy famers, reputational risks diminish for the retailers and it is back to business as usual. That is why reputational risk measures on their own will not be enough to enforce the role of the adjudicator, and we must look at more substantial financial sanctions. Dairy farmers’ success over the summer badly needs to be consolidated. Dairy farmers in my constituency cannot spend every Saturday afternoon on the high street at Drummer’s corner with petition boards. Young farmers do not want to have to dress up in cow outfits to get attention: they just want to be able to do their job. They cannot rely on being able to generate public sympathy all the time.

Without doubt, retailers value reputations and brands, but without sustained, concerted action by suppliers to keep public attention on their own product the story quickly dies. Retailers employ highly paid, very professional public relations executives, whereas working farmers do not necessarily have that public affairs expertise at their disposal, and do not have the money to pay for it. The loss of reputation for supermarkets does not necessarily translate into sufficiently meaningful change in consumer behaviour and consequently supermarket behaviour. Earlier in the summer, allegations of tax avoidance were levelled at a number of large corporations, including supermarkets such as Tesco and Asda, but that has not translated into a customer exodus, so I caution the Minister against relying too much on reputational damage to enforce the role of the groceries code adjudicator.

Supermarkets insist that price and quality are the key drivers of customer satisfaction, and my own view is that financial penalties are likely to be the most meaningful sanctions, and they should be available from the outset. Responsible retailers do not have anything to fear from that. Indeed, it might encourage them to develop better, more progressive and responsible supply chain models. To give credit where it is due, Morrisons supermarket has used a different supply chain model for its meat producers. It has a meat processing plant close to Turriff in my constituency, and farmers are much happier about that model than about previous models. There is a bit of learning still to do in the process, but there is a chance to incentivise good practice in the Bill, rather than simply hold a sword of Damocles over the supermarkets.

Another issue that has been debated this evening is accessibility and whether third parties, trade associations, non-governmental organisations and others should be able to provide evidence to spark an investigation. I am glad that the Government have recognised the valuable role that those third parties can play in the process. From my point of view, it is the veracity of the evidence that matters, regardless of its source. If there is credible evidence that the code has been breached, it should not matter where the evidence comes from. One of the main reasons why the effectiveness of voluntary codes has not been sustained is that suppliers, as has been said, are scared to put their head above the parapet and challenge manifestly unfair supply chain practices by the major retailers because they fear retaliation. They worry about losing their contract, and about getting a reputation as a troublemaker. That is one reason why others need to be able to raise concerns on their behalf.

As has been said, there is a global dimension to the Bill. The retailers who will be affected by the groceries code adjudicator all have extensive overseas supply chains, including in parts of the world where there is scant regard for labour rights, where pay is abysmal and exploitation is widespread. Pushing the costs and risks of production down the supply chain on to producers causes real hardship for our own farm businesses, food producers and processors, and other suppliers. At an international level, however, that squeeze is felt by some of the poorest people in the world, who have no social protection whatsoever. For the most part, they are not in a position to act as advocates for themselves, which is why it is important that others not only highlight the problems in the supply chain—ActionAid, Oxfam and others have done so for years—but can do so with a reasonable hope and expectation of securing meaningful change in practices.

I hear a lot of complaints from farmers in my constituency, but very few of them are willing to go public and put their head above the parapet. The hon. Member for Sherwood was careful not to identify any of his constituents for fear of the consequences. Anonymity and confidentiality are essential, but for suppliers who produce a unique product that no one else produces or a niche product that only a limited number of suppliers produce there is nowhere to hide, because they can be easily identified. I urge the Minister to respond and take on board the important role both of third parties and of the adjudicator in being able to initiate investigations.

I want to conclude by sharing with the House an advert that appeared in the Scottish press in the summer. Tesco, which posted UK profits of £2.5 billion this year, advertised for a buyer to operate in the Scottish islands among some of the most marginal farmers anywhere in the British isles. The job advert asked for candidates who would

“achieve…savings/income target through the 4 ways of buying: Buy for less; Someone Else Pays; Use less; Re-engineer”.

I find that quite shocking, as it is a naked admission from the retailer of what its supply chain model really is. Beneath all the hype and the glossy corporate responsibility literature, the supply chain model is to squeeze small, marginal producers as much as possible to maximise profits. That should be challenged, and when we debate the careful balance of these issues we must absolutely understand that those retailers have been ruthless with small farmers, and have made it increasingly non-viable for them to farm and to produce the food on which we all rely.

We have waited a long time for effective sanctions. Financial penalties will send a signal not just to the retailers but to farmers and producers that the Government are serious about helping them. It would improve confidence in the adjudicator as the post is established. We hear a lot that “Every little helps.” Perhaps it does, but we do not want just a little at this juncture. We want the measure to be a first step, and we want a robust Bill with solid sanctions. The Committees that have produced reports on the issue have said that the Bill needs to go further, and that proper financial sanctions are required. I hope that Ministers will listen and take that on board, and that we will see an effective groceries code adjudicator.