Farming Regulation Task Force Report

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that the Government published their full response to the Farming Regulation Task Force report today.

I established the independent Farming Regulation Task Force in June 2010. Its report, published in May last year, covered the full range of the regulatory landscape that affects farming, and set a challenging agenda for changing the way we regulate, and how we work with farmers.

We published our interim response in November last year. At that time I said that Government would be bold and ambitious in responding to these recommendations. Out of over 200 recommendations we have said an immediate yes to 159, setting out a clear agenda for implementation, and are actively considering a further 31. Some we are exploring through formal consultations which are currently under way, and for others we are working closely with different parts of the food and farming sector to find solutions. Where we have decided that we are unable to take forward a recommendation, we have explained clearly why.

I am proud that farming is taking forward the Government’s better regulation agenda by focusing on risk-based intervention and changing the way we work with industry and stakeholders to develop solutions in partnership. We are committed to achieving this—the task force report and this response are only the start.

The full response is available on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

Rural Payments Agency

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

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

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is today publishing a plan setting out how the agency will be transformed over the next five years so that it delivers both vastly improved service to its customers and much better value for money for taxpayers. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

This is an important turning point for the agency. The 2013 review of RPA which I published in July 2010, provided an independent, evidenced based view of RPA’s then current state as well as its readiness for implementation of the expected reform of the common agricultural policy (“CAP 2013”). The conclusions offered a stark assessment of the agency’s capabilities in terms of basic finance functions, customer service, IT, leadership and governance. The negative effects on RPA customers and for taxpayers were as clear as they were unacceptable. I said then that I would not allow that state of affairs to continue and that I would personally drive forward progress by chairing a new oversight board.

Under a new chief executive and senior management team improvements are already being seen at RPA. For example, my written statement of 11 January 2012, Official Report, column.16 WS reported that in December 2011 the agency had made its highest ever proportion of SPS payments in the opening month of the payment window. However, as is made clear in the plan, further work is required in a number of areas (data, controls, IT, organisational structure, systems and people) in order to fully overcome the legacy of the failed implementation of the SPS in 2005. Meanwhile, the challenge of implementing the CAP 2013 reforms, currently under negotiation in Brussels, looms ever closer on the horizon.

Against that background, the plan comes in two parts. Phase 1, the strategic improvement plan (SIP) involves a series of 45 projects which will run from 2012-15 and deliver:

Cleansed data;

Improved processes and controls;

Maintained or improved technology;

Fit for purpose structure and corporate services;

Better customer service tools;

Improved people capacity and capability.

Many of these projects deal with improving underlying processes and data to make RPA’s foundation more solid and the outputs may not be very visible to its customers during the life of the SIP itself. However, these projects will be crucially important in ensuring that the agency is on a sound footing to deal with the amount of change it faces over the next five years.

Phase 2, the future options programme (FOP) will take centre stage from 2014-17. The FOP is looking presently at alternative models for delivering some or all of RPA’s business following the CAP scheme changes post-2013. Once the right operating model for the future is established the FOP will assess delivery options, which may include various forms of outsourcing, and then set in train the procurement process; all this activity will take place within the next two years. The objective of the FOP is to build on the work of the SIP to provide a much better service to RPA’s customers and much better value for money for the taxpayer.

Annual RPA business plans will set out in more detail the expected costs and outputs in the year ahead. The business plan for 2012-13 is scheduled to be published in April However, I can confirm now that DEFRA is investing an addition £21.8 million in the next financial year, with a further £19.1 million provisionally earmarked for the following two financial years. This represents a serious commitment to finally drawing a line under RPA’s unfortunate legacy and putting it in the best possible position to implement the CAP 2013 reforms. I will continue to chair the RPA oversight board in order to provide the necessary support and challenge to ensure that objective is met.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What steps she is taking to reduce the regulatory burden of inspections on farmers.

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

Before answering my hon. Friends’ questions, I believe that it is right to congratulate you on a certain anniversary, Mr Speaker, if I am correctly informed, so many happy returns of the day—it is always best to start on a good note.

In my written statement of 3 November I announced the publication of the interim response to the independent farm regulation task force and stated that the Government’s final response will be published early this year. That is still my intention.

[Damian Hinds]

I thank the Minister for that answer. What reassurance can he give farmers in East Hampshire that reform of the common agricultural policy will reduce rather than increase the administrative burden?

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely important question. The only assurance I can give is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working extremely hard not only in Brussels but in capitals across Europe, speaking with fellow Ministers to try to ensure that what appears to be a more complex and complicating set of proposals are altered to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend, his farmers and, I think, every farmer and farming Minister in Europe want to see.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Tomorrow I am holding a farming forum in Shouldham Thorpe. What can I tell local farmers about progress towards a single farm inspection regime that would save them time and the Government money?

[Mr Paice]

Although I cannot guarantee a single inspection regime, I am pleased to say that we are certainly moving towards a much simpler regime, as I hope my hon. Friend and the House will see shortly when I publish our response to the Macdonald report. We are using the concept of earned recognition, whereby we can trust farmers who have demonstrated their ability to comply with regulations and reduce the level of inspection on them, and in other cases we can merge inspection regimes so that one person does them for more than one agency.

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

The CAP regime involves a lot of heavy administration. I have asked the Minister about compliance issues before, but I think that the most pressing issue at the moment is whether single farm payments will continue to provide the kind of support that farmers in the least favoured areas, particularly those in the devolved Administrations, depend upon. What update can he give us on where the Government are heading with that?

[Mr Paice]

As the hon. Lady will appreciate, I cannot give any absolute answer because I fear that the negotiations will take another 18 months to reach a conclusion, but there is no doubt that the single farm payment or a form of direct payment, whatever it is called, will continue. I cannot tell her what the exact rates will be, because obviously we have not seen any budgets yet. She will be aware that the proposal we support is that all member states and regions should move towards an area-based system, which Scotland has not yet done, so it will face that challenge, as will all the devolved regions. I can assure her that we will do our very best to negotiate on behalf of the whole United Kingdom to get the best deal for British farmers and the British taxpayer.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Mr Speaker, I join the Minister in saying to you: llongyfarchiadau.

With strong cross-party support, Labour introduced the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in response to wide public outrage at the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe bay in 2004. It is an example of good regulation and enforcement, which only last year resulted in 12 high-profile operations and prosecutions and the identification of nearly 850 exploited workers, despite budget cuts. While the exploitation of workers continues, the need for the GLA is as great as ever. Will the Minister guarantee that the red tape challenge will not be used to water down the GLA’s powers and successes and that he will work with us to improve and strengthen it, including through more flexible fines and civil penalties? No one wants a return to the horrors of Morecambe bay or to see the sickening exploitation and trafficking of people by criminal gangs continue.

[Mr Paice]

I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want a return to that. We are looking at the issue of civil penalties, which he has just described, and at fines. Nevertheless, there is some concern that the GLA has broadened its perspective way beyond the sectors that it was originally intended, rightly, to cover. It had all-party support and still does. I will not deny that we are looking at whether there are aspects of its activities that could be altered, but we will make those announcements as part of the response to Macdonald in a month’s time. The GLA’s core responsibility to protect vulnerable workers must be retained and will be.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

2. What plans she has to promote innovation in the farming industry. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

3. What progress her Department has made on payments to farmers under the single farm payment scheme.

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

In December, the Rural Payments Agency made the highest ever proportion of payments to English farmers under the single payment scheme, and it was achieved in the opening month of the scheme payment window. The latest figures, as of 18 January, show that a total of £1.5 billion had been paid to 95,702 farmers, and that demonstrates really good progress, but of course I remain committed to ensuring continued improvements in the service that farmers receive.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the Minister for that answer and do not underestimate the significant progress that he has made in sorting out the RPA, not least because of the shambles that he inherited from the previous Government. Will he categorically assure me, however, that future payment schemes will be kept as simple as possible, so that the significant difficulties that my local farmers in Devon face are not repeated in the years ahead?

[Mr Paice]

The assurance I can give my hon. Friend is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will do everything we can to ensure that future schemes are as simple as possible. As I intimated in answer to an earlier question, we are very concerned that many of the Commission’s proposals would actually make the situation more complicated rather than less so, but I assure him of our determination to improve on them.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the average payout is about £13,000 a year and yet we are giving giant CAP subsidies to the richest in the land, such as up to €500,000 to Her Majesty and €800,000 to Tate & Lyle? As we are capping benefits for the poor, should we not cap these agricultural benefits for the very rich?

[Mr Paice]

I readily accept that capping has its attractions for those who want to level down the payments. One reason why this Government and the previous Government have opposed the principle of capping payments is that it would simply cause the fragmentation of farms as they break up to meet the new criteria. That would provide jobs for lawyers, but I am not sure t it would do any other good.

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

I agree that improvements have been made, but there is still significant work to do on communication with individual farmers. Will the Minister update the House on how much the RPA is costing the taxpayer in administering the payments?

[Mr Paice]

I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks off the top of my head, I am afraid. I can assure him that both I and the chief executive of the RPA, whom I will meet later today, are extremely determined to ensure that communication improves. We had a problem last year when farmers were told that they would be paid in X month but they were not. That was very bad news, and it is why that is not happening this year. I am determined to improve that situation, because whatever the state of a claim, farmers are entitled to know what that state is.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

4. What steps she is taking to tackle littering and fly-tipping.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What discussions she has had with the chair of the independent forestry panel on its interim report.

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

The chair of the Independent Panel on Forestry informed the Secretary of State and me on 28 November last year of the content of the panel’s progress report.

[John Woodcock]

But does the Minister accept the central recommendation from the interim report that the public forest estate should remain in public hands? What reassurance can he give the people of my constituency and the many thousands of others who enjoy nearby Grizedale forest that he has learned the lesson from the forest fiasco that marred the early months of this Administration?

[Mr Paice]

As I just said, this was a progress report. We await the final report some time later this spring. It is a report by the panel, and we will have to consider the panel’s conclusions when we get the final report later this year. I cannot comment on detail on an interim report.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about the future of Forest Research?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. As he knows, the Welsh Government have decided to take forestry into the remit of their own organisation. The Scottish Government are looking at the possibility of doing the same thing. That has implications for Forest Research and, indeed, for certain other Forestry Commission activities. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer, because we are still in negotiations, but we will ensure that any devolved Administration who take on a forestry role make sure that any costs on the English commission are properly funded.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Government were deeply misguided in viewing our woodlands as assets for stripping, and the public told them so. Can the Minister assure the House that this lesson has been learned, by reassuring us that the Secretary of State will not dispose of the 15% of the public forest estate she was hoping to get rid of without legislation before she had to abandon the rest of her disastrous plans?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady, as always, gets a bit hysterical. In fact, there never was any intention to dispose of the whole public forest estate. Nevertheless, as we have repeatedly said, all sales, of any scale, are suspended until we get the final report. When we get the final report, we will then consider future policy, and not until.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.

I hope we can have a more reasoned and possibly less sexist response this time. The independent panel’s report tells us of the value of the public forest estate in terms of the environment, the rural economy and public access. The Bishop of Liverpool told the Secretary of State that she had “greatly undervalued” our forests and that they should not be sold off, but expanded. Does the Secretary of State agree with the bishop? Will she complete the final curve of the U-turn and call off the sell-off of 15% of the estate? Yes or no?

[Mr Paice]

All sales are called off until we get the final report. Then we will wait—

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Suspended.

[Mr Paice]

Suspended, called off—I do not mind which word the hon. Lady uses: no sales will take place until the final report is in hand and the Government have digested it and decided on a way forward.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

11. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the effect on farmers of the legislative proposals in the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill.

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

The Secretary of State has regular discussions with her opposite number in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a range of issues, including on the establishment of a groceries code adjudicator.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the Government are introducing the Bill. The groceries code adjudicator will be able to investigate abuses of the market by the big supermarkets. Preventing such abuse is very important to give farmers, particularly dairy farmers, a fair price for their produce. Will the Minister speak to the Government’s business managers and urge them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible?

[Mr Paice]

I am certain that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has heard my hon. Friend’s words. I assure him that I entirely agree with him.

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

12. What support she is providing to rural communities to encourage enterprise and growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. In November 2010, I was one of the 5,000 people attacked by a dog since the consultation on dangerous dogs closed in June 2010. For fear of being called to order by you, Mr Speaker, I will not raise my middle finger to the Minister to show him the 1-inch scar left following the attack, but will he bring forward the proposals on dangerous dogs before the February recess?

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

We are close to finalising a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners—I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been the victim of such an attack—and we will be announcing those measures soon. In putting the package together, we have considered the benefits of compulsory microchipping of dogs and extending the current law to cover private property, so that the police can deal more effectively with out-of-control dogs on private property. The final package will cover future Government handling of such issues, as well as other plans to improve standards of dog ownership.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

T3. Bearing in mind the years of chaos and the continued uncertainty about the future development of the Port of Southampton, can the Minister tell me what conversations have taken place with the ports Minister about how the Marine Management Organisation operates?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T4. What is DEFRA doing to ensure that the British horticultural industry is not disadvantaged by the Rural Payments Agency suspending 17 producer organisations from the European fresh fruit and vegetable scheme?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The European auditors decided a couple of years ago that we were not complying with the scheme, so unfortunately those 17 organisations have been suspended. I can tell him that the RPA is working closely with them to find ways to alter their operations so that they meet the criteria and can re-enter the scheme as soon as possible.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Would the Minister responsible for fisheries be prepared to meet the Yorkshire wildlife trust and other wildlife trusts to discuss the pace at which the Government are moving towards designating marine conservation zones?

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T7. The Food Standards Agency recently announced proposals for changes to the meat hygiene charging system, and I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s views on them.

[Mr Paice]

As my hon. Friend says, the Food Standards Agency has produced proposals that would lead to full cost recovery, a principle with which the Government agree. However, the magnitude of the increases for some abattoirs is extreme, and we are looking at that matter with concern because we clearly do not want abattoirs to be driven out of business.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), is the Minister aware that, in Westminster Hall yesterday, the shipping Minister described the five years of delays in Southampton’s port investment as a “cock-up” by the Marine Management Organisation and its predecessors? In the light of that, can he assure us that the MMO will have all the resources and expertise that it needs to deal with the application in a timely manner when the consultation ends?

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

T8. Does the Minister share my concern at the recent decision by the Food Standards Agency to turn down a licence application by Cranswick Country Foods to export to China? The matter was also raised last week at Prime Minister’s questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). Will the Minister give us some advice on how to bring pressure to bear on the FSA?

[Mr Paice]

I have already agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) wishes to attend that meeting, he will be extremely welcome. I cannot go into details now, but I must make the point that the role of the FSA is to ascertain whether the abattoirs meet the standards laid down by the Chinese; it is effectively acting as an agent for the Chinese Government in this instance.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that there is widespread opposition in the south-west to badger culls in our local communities, not least because the scientific evidence shows that such culls are completely ineffective in curbing bovine tuberculosis. Now that the two pilot areas have been announced, what steps will the Minister be taking to consult local people?

[Mr Paice]

The answer to that question is in the written statement, but let me repeat what the Government have announced this morning. There are two areas in which the farmers will be invited to apply for a licence. The process from here on is in the hands of Natural England, and it includes a consultation with local people to ascertain their views. That will happen before Natural England decides whether to grant licences to those groups.

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

Single Payment Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Written Statements

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

As explained in my statement of 8 November 2011, Official Report, column 12WS, one of the performance indicators I set the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) for the 2011 single payment scheme (SPS) was to pay 78% of the total estimated fund value to a minimum of 86% of eligible claimants by the end of December 2011. I can now confirm to the House that those figures were reached and exceeded.

By the end of 31 December 2011, RPA had made payments totalling some £1.427 billion (82.5%) to 92,066 English farmers (87.8%). These figures represent the highest ever proportion of SPS payments made by the agency in the opening month of the payment window. As such, it is a good example of the progress being made at RPA as it strives to deliver an improved level of service for English farmers in its administration of the scheme.

The focus now is on validating the remaining claims and making the related payments as soon as possible. I expect further progress in that regard over January, with a view to ensuring that the second SPS 2011 performance indicator (to have paid a minimum of 95% of both the eligible claimants and the total estimated value by the end of March 2012) is also met.

Independent Agricultural Appeals Panel

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Written Statements

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

A review of the independent agricultural appeals panel (IAAP) has been commissioned and will start work today. The IAAP is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by DEFRA, which provides advice to Ministers on appeals made by claimants under the single payment scheme and other CAP schemes administrated by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). This triennial review is part of a rolling programme of reviews that DEFRA is undertaking in line with Government’s commitment to reducing the number and cost of public bodies and ensuring accountability for public functions by examining all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) at least once every three years.

The IAAP review is to be conducted in accord with Government guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies, and will consider the effectiveness of how the functions of IAAP are currently delivered, whether there is a need for the function and the advisory NDPB to continue, and if so, how the function might best be delivered in future. The review will be led by a member for the DEFRA senior civil service who is not involved with the day-to-day business of the IAAP or RPA.

The review will compliment ongoing work by RPA to improve its complaints and appeals procedures. Key stakeholders are being informed of the review and invited to submit views. Further information, including how to participate in the review are available on DEFRA’s website http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/farm-manage /review-iaap.

An announcement will be made about the outcome of the review in due course.

Welfare of Laying Hens Directive

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Good morning, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to see the Minister in his place. I am delighted to have secured the debate. It is a matter of note that it was requested by all the members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who deem it of great importance. The thrust of my remarks relates to the legal position and legal advice on which the Government appear to have based their decision on how to proceed when the ban on battery cages comes into effect. Effectively, the issue is when is a ban not a ban?

Directive 1999/74 on the welfare of laying hens is well known to everybody in this country and across the EU; indeed, it has been in existence for 12 years. It will take effect from 1 January 2012, when there will be a ban on what are normally known as battery cages, and only eggs laid by hens in enriched cages will be allowed. That is an historic decision, which is welcomed by all across the EU, not least consumers. Animal welfare has enjoyed growing momentum across the EU, and this is the first time the Commission has sought to introduce a ban on animal welfare grounds.

Were the ban not to take effect on 1 January, the implications for the consumer would be very serious. Consumers are very much in favour of a ban. This country’s egg industry has invested £400 million in putting new facilities in place for 1 January, and I pay tribute to all the egg producers who have made such a massive contribution, not least Yorkshire Farmhouse Eggs and others in my constituency. There are also serious implications for the next ban—on sow stalls and tethers—which is due to come into force across the EU on 1 January 2013.

I want to focus for a moment on the implications of the legal aspects of the Government’s case. As I said, the directive is due to come into force on 1 January 2012. It was agreed 12 years ago, in 1999, so egg producers across the EU have had 12 years to prepare. The directive will prohibit the use of conventional cages—commonly referred to as battery cages—which contain about five birds, with a minimum of 550 sq cm, or less than the size of a sheet of A4 paper, per bird. In December 2010, such cages accounted for 28% of all laying hens in the UK. The new enriched cages provide at least 750 sq cm per bird and have a minimum height of 44 cm. They also provide a nest, a perching space and a scratching area. In December 2010, such cages accounted for 21% of all laying hens in the UK.

The directive was intended to prohibit the marketing of eggs produced in conventional cages. Here, I turn to the semantics of what the ban relates to. In this regard, there are flaws in the Government’s legal advice, their argument and the basis on which they are proceeding. I pray in aid a letter—I am happy to share it and to leave a copy in the Library and with the Department—from Commissioner John Dalli, who is the person at the directorate-general for health and consumers responsible for implementing the ban. He wrote to the Committee on 30 November, after we had written two weeks earlier—on 14 November—asking for the ban to take effect across the EU. He states:

“Currently available data suggest that there is a risk that more than 51 million hens in at least 11 Member States will still be kept in un-enriched cages on 1 January 2012.”

He goes on to say that he will

“without undue delay propose to launch infringement proceedings early next year against those Member States that appear to not enforce the Directive.”

However, as we and the Commission know—the Committee had cause to share this with a Minister from Denmark, which will hold the EU presidency from 1 January 2012—all the Commission will do then is issue a reasoned opinion against the member states that are in default. As we all realise this morning, that will give those member states three months to reply. It will therefore be le jour de poisson—April fool’s day—1 April 2012, before legal proceedings commence against any of those member states.

In arguing against the Government’s inaction, I rely on a key paragraph from the commissioner’s letter:

“Concerning unilateral action, Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Union law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

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

indicated assent.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister is nodding. The key phrase is that member states

“have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

I put it to the Minister that it is not for manufacturers, processers or retailers to police these things. I pay tribute to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for being the first Department to come forward with a taskforce to remove extra regulations and gold-plating. Under successive Governments, it has been expert at introducing such things, but gold-plating and the addition of extra regulations have cost our industry. It would be completely perverse to offload all the costs of policing these issues on to retailers, processers and others, when it should, as the commissioner says, be the Government’s responsibility to police the ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I would like to make some progress.

I put it to the Minister that he has three options before 1 January. The first is to do nothing, as he set out in his recent written statement to the House, and to let the ban lapse before it even takes effect and to offload the costs of policing processed products—not shelled eggs, but eggs in powdered, liquid and other forms. That would be unacceptable.

The second option is to take unilateral action, and the Commission clearly states that the Minister would be entirely within his rights to do so. Indeed, he said in the Government’s response to the Committee’s ninth report on the welfare of laying hens directive:

“We will be pressing to ensure that the Commission initiate infraction proceedings against Member States whose caged egg producers are non-compliant”.

He went on to say that the Government would also consider taking unilateral action:

“The Government has thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK ban on all imports of egg and egg products which have been produced in conventional cages in other Member States”.

What has changed the Minister’s mind between the quite recent date of publication—25 November—and today? The Minister should take unilateral action, rejecting shell eggs or egg products in powdered, liquid or any other form, based on the legal letter and the legal basis of the directive, backed up by the commissioner’s response to the Committee.

The third option that I invite the Minister to consider is to tour European capitals. It is not up to members of the Committee. We had a warm response from the incoming President, the Danish Agriculture Minister, when we made a visit two weeks ago. She asked the Committee which other capitals we had visited, and which other Ministers we had met. I regret to say that I had to respond that we are not allowed out very often, so it is not really the role of the Committee. It is the role of Ministers from the 14 compliant member states to tour member states to secure—if the Minister does not want to take unilateral action—a multilateral ban on their part. There are 14 or 16 other countries—we are not entirely sure how many—who will not comply.

[Mr Paice]

I am interested to hear that my hon. Friend spoke to the new Danish Minister. Did she ask what the Minister was planning to do? I did, last week, and the answer is nothing.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted that the Minister met his counterpart, but that is not what she said to us. She said she was aware that the Commission would take action. I put it to her, as I put it to the Committee this morning, that there will be inaction for three months, while just a reasoned position is issued under the Court proceedings. When we left, that Minister—the incoming EU President—had a completely open mind. As I said to her, it is quite within the rights of the Council of Ministers to overrule the Commission and rely on a multilateral ban. That is a matter of disagreement between the Minister, the Committee and the egg industry, and it would help us this morning if the Minister provided the legal advice on which the Government depend.

In his conclusions in a written statement on 6 December the Minister mentioned marketing regulations:

“Because of a loophole in the egg marketing regulations, we cannot prohibit the marketing of any eggs produced in conventional cages from 1 January 2012 which are sent to processing (whether sent as ungraded or class B), nor can we prohibit the use of any products made from such eggs.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 17WS.]

That is not the case, and I repeat the words of Commissioner Dalli:

“Concerning unilateral action, Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Union law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

The Food and Drink Federation is equally concerned and has said, in its briefing for today’s debate, that it shares concern that a number of other EU member states still do not appear ready to meet obligations first set out in the 1999 directive. It continues:

“It is also highly regrettable that the absence of mechanisms to prevent intra-community trade in non-compliant eggs exposes food manufacturers and others to the risk of inadvertently buying them.”

[Mr Paice]

They agree with us.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister says that retailers agree with the Government, but with the greatest of respect, retailers and processors do not agree with them. The Government are offloading the responsibility for applying the directive on to retailers, processors and the manufacturers of quiches, pizzas, cakes and other products.

[Mr Paice]

Will my hon. Friend reread what she just read out from the FDF? It clearly states that it agrees that it is a pity there is no mechanism. That is what she read out, and that is the Government’s position. The FDF agrees with the Government that there is no mechanism for us to establish the ban that she wants.

[Miss McIntosh]

That highlights the kernel of the disagreement between the Minister and the Committee. Will he explain precisely what the loophole is in the egg marketing regulations? Are they EU regulations or UK regulations implementing EU regulations? The Committee is at a disadvantage, because we do not have access to the legal advice on which the Government have based their opinion. If the Minister would be good enough, in his response, to clarify the legal position on the importation of non-compliant shell eggs for processing, liquid and powdered egg and egg products contained in prepared foods, it would be a great step forward. Will he also state precisely what loophole in the egg marketing regulations he believes allows the marketing and sale of all eggs and egg products, aside from class A eggs? Will he satisfy us this morning as to whether he really means that because only class A eggs are covered by the egg marketing regulations DEFRA has simply chosen to put that interpretation on the legislation?

As a currently non-practising lawyer, who practised law in two different law firms in Brussels, I accept that asking two lawyers for their opinion might produce two different legal opinions. It seems that the British Egg Industry Council has one legal opinion, and the Government rely on another. It would be helpful for us to learn precisely the terms of that opinion. I have quoted Commissioner Dalli’s belief, which is widely held, that the European Commission is clearly saying that the United Kingdom would be entirely within its rights to choose to prohibit the importation not just of class A shell eggs but also shell eggs destined for processing, and liquid and powdered eggs, from non-compliant sources, from 1 January 2012.

The Commission infraction proceedings will take place only from 1 January, with a reasoned opinion against the 10 or 11 remaining member states that do not comply with the directive. That will mean that no reference to the Court of Justice, or legal proceedings against the ban, can happen until 1 April 2012. The consequences of failing to act are huge. Bearing in mind the fact that we all—consumers, manufacturers and parliamentarians—welcome a ban on battery cages, the consequences of failing to act cannot be quantified.

Consumers were led to believe that the ban would be in place from 1 January 2012. Egg producers have made an enormous sacrifice and invested hugely—£400 million —in enriched cages. There will be huge consequences for producers who are disadvantaged. As to what the costs will be to the manufacturers, processors and retailers who are being asked to check the eggs on import, to make sure that they are compliant, perhaps the Government would like to share a figure with the House this morning. Perhaps we should also look ahead to 1 January 2013.

When the Conservatives were last in power, we imposed a unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethers, which disadvantaged our pig sector and has led to consumers buying cheaper cuts of pigmeat produced with less animal welfare-friendly methods since the early ’90s. I want an assurance from the Minister that a level playing field is not elusive, that we can achieve it, that we can allow our egg producers to compete across the European Union and that we will not accept any imports of shell eggs or any other products from 1 January 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for securing the debate and for the way in which she introduced it.

Obviously, I am aware of the importance of this issue. Hon. Members from all parts of the House have written to me about it in the past year to 18 months. Indeed, as I shall come to describe, it is something with which I have been closely involved ever since I took up my ministerial responsibilities. There is much on which I think we can all agree. However, before launching into that, I want to put on the record that I strongly resent and resist accusations that I have done nothing—as my hon. Friend suggested, when she said that I could do nothing, as was clear in my statement. I also reject the hysterical comments that have been made by those who allegedly represent the industry. They are not constructive, and they are not factual in a number of cases.

As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), have clearly stated, the provision has been in existence for 12 years, since the 1999 directive that bans the keeping of hens in conventional battery cages from 1 January. It has been widely welcomed on all sides of the debate, even from those who would prefer it to go further, as the hon. Gentleman has said. I have said in the Agriculture Council and in this country that every country has had 12 years to prepare. Even the newer member states, which were not members at that time, knew what they were signing up to. There is no excuse, in the Government’s view, for any country not to have done everything it could to ensure that its producers comply.

Clearly, the directive is a huge challenge and great concern to the industry. I join my hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties in congratulating the producers who have invested approximately £400 million in preparing for the ban by converting either to the enriched systems or to other systems. We know that the vast majority of UK producers will be compliant by 1 January. Of the remainder, we expect many of them will be leaving the industry at the end of the year or shortly after that, as soon as they can get their hens into an abattoir. As has been said, there is a different picture across Europe, with 13 of the 27 member states saying that they will not be ready. It has taken a long while for the Commission to get that information. As several hon. Members have said, there could be approximately 50 million hens in conventional cages across the EU. On 1 January, those will be unacceptable conditions.

We have been working hard to try to protect our producers, who have invested £400 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has said, that works out at about £25 per hen. I have said several times to the industry, and I do not resile from this, that we will do all that we can to protect it. I believe that we have done that within the bounds of legislation, and I shall come on to that. Alongside what we could be thinking about doing in this country, we are still pursuing the UK’s interests in Brussels. Despite the fact that it is not satisfactory, we have made some steps forward.

It is more than a year ago now—in fact, it was September 2010—when Commissioner Dalli visited this country and came to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. At that stage, I said to him that we were very concerned that member states would not be compliant. At that stage, the Commission felt that it would be “all right on the night”. However, early this year it began to realise that that might not be the case. It asked all member states for a status report by the end of April. Not all member states complied, but it has recently received more information, to which I will refer, and which is the origin of the 50 million figure that I mentioned just now.

We have had a number of further discussions, both privately between myself and the Commissioner and at Council meetings. In September, the Secretary of State wrote jointly with nine other concerned member states to the Commission, urging it to act quickly. However, at the October Agriculture Council—this is very important in light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said—the Commission ruled out the option of an inter-community trade ban, which it said is not legally possible. That is clearly on the record as a result of that Council meeting. I have to emphasise that it has warned member states not to do so individually. The Commission has told us clearly that there is no legal basis for a ban.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. Have he and his officials accepted that, or have they challenged it and sought alternative legal advice to take back to the Commissioner?

[Mr Paice]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we have sought our own legal advice. I was going to mention that issue later, but I am happy to address it now. Please forgive me, Ms Osborne, if I read from my notes verbatim, but I need to get it right. I must stress that I am not reading out direct legal advice. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to say to him that I have answered his parliamentary question and that I suspect that he will get the answer today. As I am sure that he knows, I am afraid that the answer is no. Governments do not publish legal advice given to Ministers. That was not the case under the previous Government, and it is not the case under this Government.

The treaty on the functioning of the EU prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between member states and all measures that have a similar effect, with limited exceptions to that general rule, including where they are necessary on animal health or human health grounds. The advice that we have received shows that it is extremely unlikely that a court would extend those exceptions to animal welfare grounds in these circumstances. The treaty also states that any restriction of trade must not constitute arbitrary discrimination.

Given the traceability issues around distinguishing between imported eggs that have been reared in conventional cages in other member states and those that have not—I will come back to traceability in a moment—any ban would have to be on imports of all eggs from a particular country, whether reared in conventional cages or not. That would clearly penalise compliant producers in other member states, which runs contrary to the principle of the free movement of goods. The hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the ban on sow stalls, which we implemented a long time ago in this country. If we apply the logic of the argument that we are discussing to that, we would have had to introduce a ban on all pigmeat, including that not introduced in sow stalls. Neither the Government at the time nor the previous Labour Government believed that they had the power to do that. It is quite clear that we do not have the legal basis to take such action.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for sharing the advice with us. The sad fact is that if we claimed there was an animal health issue with shelled eggs or their products, we could reject them. I submit to the Minister that the legal basis on which we can rely for either a unilateral or multilateral ban is the EU directive coming into force from 1 January, which finds its legal base in the treaty. We are breaking new ground here. This is the first time that the Commission has imposed a community-wide ban on animal welfare grounds. I therefore submit that the legal instrument is the directive. I ask the Minister to respond to John Dalli’s comments that I read out about having the power and duty to keep products produced illegally off our markets, either unilaterally or, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has said, multilaterally. I cannot accept that there are no grounds for a ban, because the EU directive is the legal instrument.

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right, but she needs to read that legal instrument to see what powers it gives member states to introduce a ban. The fact is that it does not give those powers. The Commissioner has been through this over and over again. I have had private meetings with him and with others as well. He is absolutely adamant that there are no powers available to him or member states to introduce the ban in the way in which my hon. Friend has advocated

I hope that I can clarify the matter by coming to traceability, which is right at the heart of the issue. Before getting to that, I shall finish my point about the Commission’s role. Once Commissioner Dalli realised that there was going to be a big problem, the Commission started looking for a robust enforcement approach that would avoid a large number of producers having to close down their operations. More importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has said, the Commissioner also wanted to avoid the destruction of millions and millions of eggs, which clearly would not have been right when many people are struggling to make ends meet.

At the same time, the Commissioner wanted to protect producers who have complied with the ban. He came up with the concept of what has been described as a gentlemen’s agreement, which does not have a legal basis. Most of those member states who were expecting to be compliant did not like the idea. Those who were not compliant reluctantly agreed to the idea. I took the view that, although we did not want any slippage in the timetable, we had to face up to the reality that there would be non-compliant eggs and therefore something had to be done. In fact, the gentlemen’s agreement died. There was clearly no prospect of a gentlemen’s agreement, and it has not been progressed.

The Commission has acted on the practical things for which the UK has been pressing. As several hon. Members have said, it has begun pre-infraction procedures. More importantly, it has also asked for the action plans from all non-compliant member states to contain measures to accelerate compliance. In answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore, its intention is for a monthly report of those plans to be given to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which is known as SCoFCAH for short.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Once again, I thank the Minister for clarification on those points. Returning to the legal advice, has he sought clarification from his officials on the risk of the UK being found guilty and prosecuted for infraction for trying to abide by the very standards that the EU Commissioner wants to apply eventually throughout Europe? Considering the backdrop he has just explained about the EU Commission driving forward pre-infraction procedures, if the UK or other countries were to go for a unilateral ban or a multilateral ban with like-minded countries, what is the likelihood of the UK facing infraction? If a country is infracted for not doing something, it is different from being infracted for doing the very thing the EU wants countries to do.

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Obviously, I cannot tell him what the risk is. This is an extremely important point and, to go back in history, his Government took such a view about earlier issues when the boot was on the other foot. It is very difficult for someone to argue that other people are not complying with the law if they then proceed to break it themselves. Someone would lose a great deal of moral standing if they did that.

I want to make a final point about the Commission before I come back to the key issues. The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office missions will be targeted from the beginning of 2012 at non-compliant member states and, to help that, all member states have been asked to submit lists of compliant producers. We have asked for all those measures, because they will give some protection to compliant producers in the UK and across the EU. Clearly, that is not enough, which is why we have said that we reserve the right to take our own actions. Yes, we have thoroughly investigated the possibility of unilateral action and, when I have said in the past that we were considering the matter, I was saying it exactly as it was. I think that hon. Members who know me well enough will know that I would be keen to take action, but, unfortunately, the legal advice that I have had from within, plus the statements from the Commission to which I have referred, have led me to believe that we cannot do so. That is partly because of the practical issues and difficulties in enforcing such an approach.

[Miss McIntosh]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

Let me continue, because I am addressing my hon. Friend’s point about the issue of traceability. Perhaps I can also mention the point about the egg marketing regulations, because the two matters are interlinked. The answer to her question about the egg marketing regulations is that class A are shell eggs and they have to be marked with a producer number and a mark defining the production method—in other words, it would be code 3 from a battery cage or, from January, from an enriched cage.

Class B eggs, however, which are mainly used in manufacturing, are not required to be marked with anything—with either a producer number or a code—so there is no traceability, which is the key point. If we were to introduce a ban, it would have to be on all non-grade A eggs or on all powder and/or liquid. We could not differentiate them, which is the nub of the challenge that we faced. Because of that, as I suggested earlier in relation to the legal advice, we would have been accused of a discriminatory approach and would certainly have been in breach of the legislation.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister confirm whether the marketing regulations are European Union regulations or UK regulations? If they are EU regulations, we, as a country, would have had the opportunity to query them and, presumably, amend them when they were drafted. Will the Minister comment on that? I look forward to his response to other questions, but what will be the cost to the industry—to processors, retailers and manufacturers—of doing what the Government are asking it to do from 1 January?

[Mr Paice]

They are European regulations—there is no question about that—as I am sure the advisers to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will have confirmed to my hon. Friend. We have, in recent months, asked the Commission—and we will continue to ask it—to amend those regulations. That has not happened so far, and I must confess that the Commission officials with whom we have had detailed discussions do not seem overly keen on the idea, so we are faced with having to operate within the existing legislation.

On the issue of what exactly is an offence, it will be an offence to keep hens in those cages, and we would prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That is clear. However, it will not necessarily be an offence to be in possession of an egg from an illegal cage, but it would be an offence to try to pass it off as an egg from a legal cage. It is important to be clear about that.

On the efforts that we have made within the constraints, the hon. Member for Ogmore challenged me about the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency and my description of the use of ultraviolet light. He is right that the technique has never been used directly in the way that we propose, but, as he has also said, it has been used to identify eggs from caged hens within batches that have been described as free range or barn eggs. Not until now has it been specifically used to identify different types of caged egg production, but we have had it independently validated, and I have looked at it myself. When an egg is laid, the shell is momentarily a bit soft and takes an imprint of the material on which it is laid. If it is laid on wire, it comes through clearly under ultraviolet light, which is obvious. If it is laid on any sort of softer egg-laying surface, which is a requirement of an enriched cage, that comes through as a completely different pattern.

I must also make it clear, however, that the use of ultraviolet light is simply a marker for us and would not, by itself, be the basis of prosecution. If any suspect eggs are found, we will ask the country of origin to confirm our suspicions about whether the producer—do not forget that the information will be on the egg—is compliant or not. That is how the system will operate. If the eggs are found to be from an illegal system, they will be prevented from being marketed as class A eggs and sent for processing—that is, as I have said, downgraded to class B. I have now explained the point about marketing regulations.

As of today, as far as we can establish, the average price per dozen of class A caged eggs, which are, of course, legal at the moment, is about 54p, while the average price per dozen of class B eggs is 29.4p. That is nearly 25p per dozen cheaper, which is close to 50% of the price. That is a massive price differential. I cannot believe that anybody will seek to import eggs from non-compliant cages and risk losing half the value of the eggs if we detect them. We have to be sensible. The economic impact on anybody who has their eggs downgraded will be absolutely massive, and I do not believe that they would risk it happening. As far as shell eggs are concerned, our measures will be sufficient.

Let me turn to the understandably more concerning issue of processed eggs, which, as has rightly been said, represent about half the imports of egg and egg products into this country and approximately 9% of total consumption. As I have said, they are much less easy to trace, because the eggs are not required to carry any identification. That loophole causes us immense problems, which is why we have been pressing, and will continue to press, to get it closed. In the absence of that, we have had to use what opportunity we have, which, as I have said, is to work with the industry. The hon. Member for Ogmore is right and that is why I published a list in my statement, and was happy to do so, unusually, on the basis of name and shame. I am happy to update the list and, as of today, can add two more processors—Bumble Hole Foods Ltd and D Wise Ltd. That now means that nine of the major processors are on board, reducing still further the likelihood of eggs from conventional cages or their products being imported.

That is the situation. I am approaching the end of my allocated time and have almost finished addressing the issues, but I am conscious that I also need to respond to a number of questions. In the absence of the ability to instigate a ban, we have tried, as I have explained, to throttle the market. That is what it boils down to—we have tried to make sure that there is no market in the UK for illegally produced eggs or egg products.

I have dealt with the issue of legal advice. To return to my earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, I have been in contact with like-minded countries in the EU. In the week before I made the statement, I telephoned them myself and not one of them is proposing any action yet. As far as we can establish, we are the only country proposing any measures from 1 January. Of course, I continue to work with them and, if there are prospects for more unified action, I will take it, but, as I have said, they are not minded to take action.

I have mentioned the regular monthly updates to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore, I will ensure that, somehow, that is brought to the House’s attention. I cannot give him the information about non-compliant imports, because of the issue of traceability, which I have mentioned. We do not know whether such imports are non-compliant, and we are trying to ensure that they are not. The European Commission cannot impose financial penalties, which is a matter for the courts following infraction proceedings. On the industry’s issues, it has not provided us with any form of costings. We are open about that. I am sure that if the costings had been onerous, the industry would have been quick to tell us.

Finally, I fully understand the importance of the issue. We have tried very hard to use the weapons available to us.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am sorry, but I must finish. The fact that I have been able to list not just retailers, but all the major bakery brands, such as the producers of Mr Kipling and all sorts of biscuits, and the major caterers, such as Compass Group, BaxterStorey, Sodexo, and a number of, if not all, the major importers of egg products, demonstrates that we have gone a long way to throttling the marketplace in this country for eggs from non-compliant cages. My final point for anybody who tells me that it is too difficult and that the eggs cannot be traced is that the importers of processed eggs have their own traceability systems, because that is what they are trying to do and, they have assured us, what they will do. However, when we are faced with an egg that has no indication of where it came from, we cannot trace it, which is the harsh fact. I hope that the House will accept that the Government are doing all that we can to protect our producers.

EU Ban (Keeping of Hens in Conventional Cages)

James Paice Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Written Statements

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

I know many members of the House have been following progress on the implementation of the EU-wide ban on the keeping of hens in conventional cages. I, therefore, want to take this opportunity to update the House and explain how the ban will be enforced by DEFRA and the devolved Administrations.

Council Directive 1999/74/EC, which lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, bans the keeping of hens in conventional (“battery”) cages from 1 January 2012. This represents one of the most significant welfare advances across the EU and DEFRA, along with the devolved Administrations, has been working hard to see it effectively implemented across the European Union.

The Government acknowledge the sterling job that the UK egg industry has done in preparing for the ban and the very big investment made in converting to other production systems, demonstrating its commitment to animal welfare, which is also a serious consideration for many consumers when purchasing food. The vast majority of UK producers will be compliant by 1 January 2012.

It is a different story across Europe. 13 of the 27 member states have said that they will not be ready. There could be about 50 million hens that will still be in conventional cages across the EU in unacceptable conditions on 1 January 2012.

We want to protect our producers who have invested some £400 million in converting out of conventional cages, equivalent to spending £25 per hen housed. To this end, I have met with the Commission a number of times over the last year in an attempt to find a solution. A reliance on infraction proceedings against non-compliant member states will not be enough to deal with the negative impact that non-compliance would cause and that additional enforcement measures would need to be put in place to prevent market disturbance. In September, the Secretary of State wrote jointly with nine other concerned member states to the European Commission urging them to act quickly. At the October Agriculture Council, the Commission indicated that despite their efforts an intra-Community trade ban was not legally possible.

The Commission then turned to looking for a robust enforcement approach that avoids large numbers of producers having to close down their operations and the destruction of millions of hens and non-compliant eggs, while at the same time protecting all those producers who have complied with the ban and implemented a flagship animal welfare issue. While I never wished to see the 2012 deadline delayed, I was willing to explore the idea of a practical solution which would give some protection to UK and other compliant producers, by ensuring eggs from illegal cages did not leave the country of origin.

There was a meeting at official level on 29 November, where the Commission said that the early stages of pre-infraction procedures had already begun with non-compliant member states. The idea of a gentleman’s agreement will not be progressed, but the Commission has asked for action plans from all non-compliant member states, many of whom supported keeping non-compliant eggs within national borders. The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office missions will be targeted at the beginning of 2012 at non-compliant member states and all member states have been asked to submit lists of compliant and non-compliant producers.

We have decided that the UK enforcement strategy to deal with non-compliance with the conventional cage ban will be robust.

The Government have thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK ban on all imports of egg and egg products which have been produced in conventional cages in other member states. However, given the very significant legal and financial implications of introducing such a ban, coupled with practical difficulties in enforcing it, it is not a realistic option.

Instead, DEFRA and the devolved Administrations will be adopting the most robust enforcement approach available to us within the legal constraints that exist. Risk-based surveillance to ensure imported shell eggs from other member states have been produced in compliance with the cage ban will be in place from 1 January. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) is the body responsible for enforcing the conventional cage ban in Great Britain. Its knowledge of the industry and those importing eggs, coupled with an understanding of a member state’s level of compliance will define the level of surveillance.

AHVLA surveillance on imports of shell eggs will use ultraviolet light analysis to identify batches of caged eggs that are not from an enriched cage environment. This technique has successfully been used to date to identify caged eggs within batches described as being produced in alternative systems, for example, free-range. It has not up until now been used to specifically identify different types of caged egg production, but we have had the technique independently validated and it can be done. This technique will be used as a marker to prompt further action. Once suspected non-compliant shell eggs are identified, AHVLA will contact the Competent Authority in the originating member state and ask for confirmation of the system of production.

If they are found to be from an illegal system, they will be prevented from being marketed as class A eggs and would be sent for processing (i.e. be treated as class B eggs)—if indeed any UK processors would accept them. If the eggs were found to be from a compliant system, the eggs would be released.

We believe this scrutiny will mean importers will make greater efforts to ensure the source and integrity of the eggs they import, given the economic disadvantage that would follow if they were importing illegally produced eggs. We have no wish to hinder legal trade or disadvantage compliant producers wherever they are in Europe and we are quite happy to use member states’ own lists of compliant producers, which AHVLA can check against and which will mean that these consignments are less likely to be held up.

However, the import of processed egg, principally in liquid or powdered form, is less easy to trace as the supply chain is less transparent and more challenging to audit. Because of a loophole in the egg marketing regulations, we cannot prohibit the marketing of any eggs produced in conventional cages from 1 January 2012 which are sent to processing (whether sent as ungraded or class B), nor can we prohibit the use of any products made from such eggs. We will continue to press in Europe to get this loophole closed, but until then we are taking steps to establish as much compliance as is possible with the conventional cage ban for egg products by working closely with the food industry.

An essential part of the UK’s enforcement strategy is to ensure that retailers, egg processors, food manufacturers and the food service industry have stringent traceability tests in place to ensure that they are not using non-compliant eggs from either the UK or from other member states. Once again, our industry has risen to that challenge.

Retailers, food manufacturers, food service companies and processors have come out publically in support of UK egg producers. The British Retail Consortium has guaranteed that conventional caged eggs will not be bought by the major retailers or used as ingredients in their own brand products. They have put in place stringent traceability tests to ensure that they will not be buying conventional caged eggs. Retailers that have made this guarantee are Marks and Spencer, Morrisons, Asda, J Sainsbury, Co-operative Group, Tesco, Waitrose, Iceland Foods, Greggs, Starbucks and McDonald’s. Many food manufacturers and food service companies have also given a similar guarantee for eggs or egg products. They include: Premier Foods plc, Marlow Foods Ltd, United Biscuits, Ferrero UK, Apetito, Allied Mills, Allied Bakeries, Burton’s Biscuit Company, Speedibake, Dairy Crest, The Silver Spoon Company, Westmill Foods, Compass, Baxter Storey, and Sodexo. The following egg processors have also signed up to not sourcing conventional caged eggs from 1 January 2012: Manton’s, Noble Foods, Framptons, Fridays, Oaklands Farm Eggs, Lowrie Foods, and the UK Egg Centre. We are in discussion with others who we hope to be able to add to this list.

The UK is 82% self-sufficient in egg and egg products, with the remaining 18% coming from other member states. Of the 18% of egg and egg products being imported, approximately 50% will be imported as shell egg and 50% imported as egg product (liquid or powder). The fact that we have managed to get the majority of UK processors on board, reduces the likelihood of non-compliant egg products being imported and demonstrates that full traceability is possible and should not be used as a justification by others to say that it is not.

Ultimately, it will be for the Competent Authority in each member state to take responsibility at source for ensuring that their producers no longer keep hens in conventional cages post 1 January 2012. If a retailer purchased eggs from a conventional cage that are marked incorrectly as class A, without exercising appropriate due diligence, they would be committing a marketing offence. The caterer, processor or product manufacturer might also be guilty of aiding and abetting such an offence if they knowingly purchased eggs purporting to be class A which derive from illegal cages.

The Government will also do their bit to protect compliant producers. We will be making necessary changes to the Government Buying Standards mandatory criteria to ensure that eggs produced in conventional cages, are not used in any form whether this is fresh, powdered or liquid.

Given our commitment to support compliant producers, we will also be taking tough action against any UK producers found to have laying hens in conventional cages after 1 January 2012. The AHVLA have visited the vast majority of known cage producers to remind them of the need to comply with the conventional cage ban when it comes into force at the end of the year and at the same time find out producers’ intentions, as to whether they will cease production or convert to alternative systems. Similar action has also been taken by Scottish Government officials and officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland. This has helped to build a picture of where remaining non-compliance may be found and thus where risk based inspections should be targeted in the UK from 1 January 2012. All producers targeted by the intelligence led risk analysis will be visited at the beginning of next year. If contraventions are found at the time of the visit, they will be dealt with using provisions within the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, which implements Council Directive 99/74/EC, and the egg marketing regulations. A compliance notice will be issued immediately to ensure that conventional caged eggs do not go into the class A market, preventing the producer from benefiting from the production of illegally produced eggs and prosecution will be considered. Similar action will be taken as appropriate in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We will be monitoring the situation carefully in the new year and will not hesitate to raise matters in Europe if any issues arise. I, together with my ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations, intend to continue urging the Commission to learn lessons from this experience with the conventional cage ban to avoid the same kind of problems occurring next year, leading up to the EU ban on the use of sow stalls on 1 January 2013.

Single Payment Scheme

James Paice Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to confirm that as at the end of 1 December, the first day of the 2011 single payment scheme (SPS) payment window, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) had released payments totalling over £1.2 billion (71.6% of the estimated total fund) to some 84,600 English farmers (80.8% of the estimated total of eligible claimants). Payments to farmers will continue to be made as soon as validation of their claims is complete, with the values adjusted to reflect any significant outstanding overpayments from previous years. There remains much to do, but this promising beginning places RPA in a good position to meet its first SPS 2011 performance indicator, namely to pay 78% of the total estimated fund value to a minimum of 86% of eligible claimants by the end of December 2011.

In line with the commitment in my statement of 8 November, Official Report, column 12WS, RPA will write in early December to those farmers who are unlikely to be paid during the month in order to both explain the additional work that is required to validate their claim and provide an indicative time scale for how long that type of work can take. While it will not be possible to provide specific dates when payments will be made, I hope the additional information being supplied this year will help farmers with business planning.

I will continue to keep the House informed on the agency’s progress.

Live Animal Exports (Clarification of Minister's Comments)

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Written Statements

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

During a debate on 24 October 2011, Official Report, column 146, I made reference to a Mr Onderwater being prosecuted for cruelty following the earlier reference by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) to business men who were involved with the operation of a livestock ferry at Ramsgate who had been convicted of animal cruelty. I regret the information I gave was not accurate and I wish to apologise to the House.

Mr Onderwater runs a Dutch registered company called Onderwater Agneaux BV. He pleaded guilty on behalf of his company at Folkestone magistrates’ court on 5 July 2010 to six offences of not displaying any sign on his vehicles indicating the presence of live animals contrary to article 6(c) of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 and article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport. The prosecutor was the trading standards department of Kent county council.

Mr Onderwater had also mis-described the cargo of live animals in consignment notes as seafood, frozen meat and boxed meat: the Crown court found this was in order to deceive the ferry companies. Mr Onderwater had been informed on several occasions that he was contravening the legislation by not displaying such signs yet the company continued to commit the same offence in the two months following first detection.

On 1 September 2009, 320 sheep were transported described as meat.

On 30 September 2009, an unspecified number of sheep described as meat for further processing.

On 11 November 2009, 240 sheep described as meat.

On 14 November 2009, 307 sheep described as seafood— Mr Onderwater was driving this lorry.

Also on 14 November 2009, 286 sheep described as boxed meat.

On 19 November 2009, 270 sheep described as frozen meat.

He was fined £1,000 for each offence, with costs of £4,355.

Mr Onderwater represented his company at an appeal against this sentence at Canterbury Crown court on 10 August 2010. On appeal the total fine remained at £6,000 but costs were reduced by £680 to £3,675. His Honour Judge O’Sullivan fined the company £400 for the first offence, £800 for the second offence, £1,000 each for the third, fourth and fifth offences and £1,800 for the sixth offence.

His Honour Judge O’Sullivan said in his sentencing remarks that there was no offence which involved “mistreatment of animals” but that the company’s persistent offending despite being caught made it quite clear that the company had no intention of trying to abide by the regulations. The judge noted that there is a wider use for these signs to indicate the presence of live animals on vehicles and that it is important, for instance, in case of an accident that the cargo can be identified as being livestock so that the necessary measures for safeguarding the welfare of the animals can be put into operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Paice Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

My noble. Friend Lord Taylor, who leads on the subject of dangerous dogs in DEFRA, has been working alongside Lord Henley at the Home Office to see how the proposed antisocial behaviour measures can be best applied to such behaviour relating to dogs. DEFRA has also been developing proposals on reducing dog attacks and promoting more responsible dog ownership. This is now at an advanced stage and, subject to ministerial clearance, we will be able to make an announcement early in the new year.

[Michael Connarty]

That is a very helpful reply, because while the Government have been divided on this matter—DEFRA and the Home Office share this responsibility—and dithering, quite frankly, yet another very serious attack on a postman has been reported by the Communication Workers Union. Someone nearly lost most of the fingers on one hand in an attack by a dog, which was clearly vicious, in a private property. We need to deal with that problem quickly because members of the postal services who go into private property must be protected from people who keep vicious dogs.

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The issue of dangerous dogs on private land is very important and it is one of the issues we are discussing closely with the Home Office because, as he will know, it would require amendment to primary legislation.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Further to that reply, one of the consequences of the dangerous dogs debate has been the stigmatisation of an entire breed, the Staffordshire bull terrier, which makes up a huge percentage of the abandoned dogs that Battersea Dogs and Cats Home takes in and a vast bulk of those that are hard to rehome. Yesterday, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home launched a campaign in Parliament to reclaim the good name of the Staffordshire bull terrier. May I invite the Minister to endorse that campaign?

[Mr Paice]

Yes, I am happy to endorse that campaign, having been brought up as a child with bull terriers, as my parents had them—[Interruption.] I said “with”, not “by”. I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s contention that the vast majority of that breed are perfectly harmless.

[Mr Speaker]

Much has now been explained. We are very grateful to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

5. What her policy is on the use of electronic training aids for cats.

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

DEFRA has neither commissioned nor evaluated any specific research on electronic training aids for cats. DEFRA is currently awaiting the publication and evaluation of recent research on the use of electronic training collars for dogs, before making any decisions on whether to introduce any proposals relating to those devices.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister for that answer, because 250,000 cats are killed on the roads every year. Containment fences and electronic devices help to keep cats safe, and they are completely different from the electronic collars used on dogs. Will he guarantee that, when his Department consults on banning the use of electronic collars, he will distinguish between cats and dogs and work closely with the group, Feline Friends, which is based in North East Derbyshire—my constituency?

[Mr Paice]

I think I can confirm to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction that we have no plans to do anything about training aids for cats. Indeed, the research on dogs that I referred to relates only to collars, not to what is known as the invisible fence. We therefore have no such proposals.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Home Office has responsibility for dangerous dogs and he seems to have responsibility for domestic cats?

[Mr Paice]

Well, it is probably because, as anyone who knows me will confirm, I am extremely soft and really just a pussycat myself.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

7. What estimate she has made of the number of green jobs that will be created by implementation of the waste review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

12. What discussions she has had with (a) her EU counterparts and (b) ministerial colleagues on the implementation of the welfare of laying hens directive.

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

Discussions at EU level are ongoing, and the UK is fully engaged with the Commission, other member states and the devolved Administrations on finding a practical enforcement solution. We need to protect producers across the EU who will have complied with the ban from unfair competition from those who fail to comply.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the concerns of the United Kingdom are being heard because of early representations by this Government? Will he commit to doing the same for our pig farmers, who risk being disadvantaged in the same way by new animal welfare regulations due in 2013?

[Mr Paice]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that it is over a year since we first told the Commission that it was quite obvious that a number of countries would not be able to comply in time. She is absolutely correct that this is a precursor to an even bigger welfare issue: the ban on sow stalls, which comes in on 1 January 2013. If we do not get it right this time, it does not bode very well for 2013.

[Sarah Newton]

Colin Carter’s Eggs in Perranwell has invested in high standards of hen welfare, and it is understandably concerned, as I am, that cheap eggs—in particular, processed or liquid eggs, which account for 25% of the market—are coming in from parts of the EU that do not have such high standards. What is my right hon. Friend doing to prevent that?

[Mr Paice]

As I said in my opening answer, discussions are still going on. There is a further meeting of officials in Brussels next week, and that really is the last chance for the EU to prove that it is serious about improving animal welfare and enforcing its regulations. If, as I fear, no solution comes about next week, I will make an announcement shortly on how we intend to protect our industry.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

My constituent Mr Tulip and his family have spent almost £8 million bringing their farm up to the EU directive level. If the meeting next week does not go well, will the considerations include banning eggs from countries that are acting illegally?

[Mr Paice]

I fully appreciate that UK producers have invested about £400 million in new systems, and they are entitled to expect others to do the same; that is perfectly reasonable. As for the measures that will be taken if we do not get anywhere in Europe—and I cannot claim much optimism on that front—I will make an announcement shortly. A ban has not been ruled out, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that there are some pretty big legal issues here.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given that the British egg industry has spent some £400 million on meeting the requirements of the EU directive, and countries such as Spain, Poland, France and Italy have done everything to avoid their obligations under the directive, should not the Minister say at the EU meeting that unless the Europeans put the right deal on the table, there will be a British unilateral ban to keep out illegal eggs from other EU countries?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some 12 member states will not be in full compliance—some to a much greater degree than others—and he is right that Spain and Poland are among those 12. As I say, we have not ruled out a ban. It is important that the other countries—member states that, like us, will have complied, including most of the northern European countries—work together wherever possible to make sure that we have maximum impact when it comes to forcing compliance elsewhere.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on (a) food prices and (b) support for British food manufacturing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

10. What progress she has made in reducing the administrative burden of inspection and regulation on farmers.

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

My hon. Friend and the House will know that the Government attach huge importance to the need to lift the burden of regulation while maintaining standards. On 3 November I announced the publication of the interim response to the independent farm regulation taskforce. We will publish a final response early next year.

[Simon Hart]

Does the Minister agree that this is all about trust and that, where possible, we should trust our farmers to self-regulate and impose statutory regulations only where absolutely necessary?

[Mr Paice]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that there appears to have been a view over the years that every farmer was a potential criminal, and farmers felt very disillusioned about that. We believe that the vast majority want to comply with regulations and can be trusted to do so, which is why we are looking at earned recognition so that we can concentrate our resources on the small minority who might not comply.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of some initial concerns about additional administrative costs for the farming community following the introduction of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which has proved to be really effective and has been welcomed by farmers. Will he assure the House that there are no plans to change how the agency operates or how it is funded?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The GLA was set up after the tragic events at Morecambe bay and, to the best of my recollection, was supported by all parties in the House. That work is still extremely important. Discussions are taking place within Government on whether DEFRA is the right place for the GLA, so I cannot give the undertakings he is perhaps demanding, but the existence and purpose of the GLA is absolutely right and will be maintained.

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

Suffolk farmers expect this Government to reduce red tape. On the May report of the regulation taskforce, will the Minister tell us what the compliance cost saving will be if his Department delivers all 200 cuts in bureaucratic processes?

[Mr Paice]

I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure at this stage because we are still developing our final response. We are going through all 214 recommendations and are determined to be bold and ambitious, as we were urged to be by Richard Mcdonald. Much of the cost to farmers is the result not of complying with regulations, but of the bureaucratic burden of the process of complying, and that is what we are trying to address.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to curb the hunting of endangered species.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T2. The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside is concerned about the future funding of higher-level stewardship on the west Pennine moors and the Red Moss site of special scientific interest, which are both in my constituency. What assurance can the Secretary of State give that she will secure funding and not be out-negotiated by the French, or by the Treasury?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, because we are very conscious that the uncertainties of the EU proposals on common agricultural policy reform are causing some landowners and farmers to worry about their stewardship payments. May I, though her and the House, assure everybody involved that the Government are determined to continue with our stewardship schemes, both higher level and entry level, and will do everything in our power to ensure that that happens? We are at an early stage of the negotiations, but we are determined that somehow—either through a transfer of money from pillar one to pillar two, or perhaps through the greening element of pillar one—we shall maintain those excellent schemes.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T6. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Latin American colleagues to prepare for the forthcoming international conferences in Durban and Rio?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T9. Currently we pay our farmers not to grow crops, but at the same time the world population is growing, and half the world is in need of food. What will my right hon. Friend do to end that scandal, so that our farmers can get back to what they do best: growing crops for this country and for the rest of the world?

[Mr Paice]

I hesitate to challenge my hon. Friend, but that waste stopped four or five years ago. We no longer have set-aside. The worry now is the Commission’s proposal effectively to reintroduce a 7% set-aside as part of the ecological focus areas that the Commissioner proposes. We do not believe that that is the right way forward. We have to produce more food, but we must do so sustainably. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we are sorry that the proposals, so far, do not meet that challenge.

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

T5. May I draw the Minister’s attention to early-day motion 2273 in my name, which has attracted more than 60 signatures from Members of all sides of the House and calls for the implementation of mandatory CCTV in UK slaughterhouses? It is disturbing that around 90% of cases of animal cruelty in UK slaughterhouses do not result in a successful prosecution. Will the Minister consider introducing a pilot scheme to trial such an approach?

[Mr Paice]

Animal Aid believes that around 70% of slaughterhouses already have CCTV. Regarding the recent, quite proper, furore over cruelty to pigs at what was then called Cheale Meats, it is important to point out that CCTV cameras were there—albeit perhaps pointed in the wrong direction—so they are not the final panacea that some people believe them to be. Nevertheless, we are considering them as part of a wider-ranging package to ensure that there is no cruelty to animals in those last few moments of their lives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Does the welfare of laying hens directive present an opportunity for us to support our farmers and food producers through country of origin labelling and information on compliance suppliers and sources of egg? Will the Minister have discussions with supermarkets and other retailers on egg products, liquid and powder egg, and prepared foods, so that it is easy to buy good eggs?

[Mr Paice]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have had such discussions and will continue to have them. I can assure the House that overall, the supermarkets, and indeed much of the processing sector, are determined to comply with the spirit of the legislation and procure egg and egg product only from compliant cages. As I said, I may well make a further statement shortly.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

T7. The Minister has consistently said that the review of the common fisheries policy is a golden opportunity, and he has said the same again today. Will he therefore make a promise to the House that the British fishing fleet will be larger at the next election than it was at the beginning of this Parliament?

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Mandatory greening under new CAP reform proposals would remove a fifth of land on higher level stewardship farms from food production. What representations has the Secretary of State made to the EU Agriculture Commissioner about the damaging impact that that would have on food security in this country?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we met the Commissioner only 10 days ago and impressed on him the fact that the proposals were not in accordance with the challenges of global food demands in the coming years. I can assure him that we are not a lone voice. Listening to the voices around the Council table reveals that the vast majority of Ministers are opposed to taking further land out of production.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

T8. Business groups have warned that the Government’s decision to delay the establishment of marine conservation zones will impede investment in marine industries, including renewable energy and sustainable fishery projects. Does the Secretary of State agree?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The six-day movement rule and the ban on on-farm burial are particularly burdensome to livestock farmers. Since their introduction the scientific understanding of these matters has moved on. Will the Minister commission a scientific review of the regulations with a view to their relaxation?

[Mr Paice]

Both issues appear in the Macdonald report, to which I referred earlier and to which we will be responding early in the new year. The burial of dead animals, in particular, is controlled at EU level, and it is not entirely within this Government’s gift to change the rules.

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