Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I will happily confirm the reference in that clause:

“When carrying out an investigation the Adjudicator may consider any information that it seems appropriate to consider and is not limited to considering the information mentioned in subsection (1)”—

subsection (1), of course, lists a range of places from which information could be provided. The point of that phrasing is to ensure that the adjudicator has flexibility in considering information from whatever source. That includes, but is not limited to, information from trade associations, as the Chair of the Select Committee mentions, from a whistleblower, or others who might have concerns or evidence of malpractice about compliance with the code. We do have—

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Jo Swinson]

I am still responding to the earlier question, but if the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience I will come to his intervention shortly.

On the other point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), there will obviously be a regular review of the adjudicator. That is appropriate in ensuring that it functions as it should and that any necessary changes can be made, but we will not prevent the adjudicator from properly considering information before the initial review is produced. I want to make a little progress and then I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer).

The adjudicator will be funded by a levy from the 10 largest retailers and will have the power to investigate breaches and to impose sanctions against supermarkets found to have breached the code. Some Members have previously criticised the Bill as being anti-business. What is anti-business about ensuring that the grocery market works as well as it can, without being distorted by anti-competitive and unfair practices?

[Jo Swinson]

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way.

The direct or indirect suppliers who are among the potential beneficiaries of the Bill include fresh food intermediaries and food and drink manufacturers. That is why the Bill is supported by major business groups, including the Food and Drink Federation, the British Brands Group, the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Farmers Union. A fair market is one in which suppliers and supermarkets are free to innovate, expand and offer the widest possible choice to the consumer without fear of being disadvantaged by unfair dealings elsewhere.

[Mr Spencer]

The Minister refers to blacklisting, when suppliers will be disadvantaged by coming forward. Can she reassure the House about how she will achieve that when, for example, the number of suppliers in the east midlands for a specific vegetable will be limited, and it will be quite easy to identify which one is supplying that product to a particular supermarket?

[Jo Swinson]

Clause 18 provides that there is a duty on the adjudicator to protect confidentiality. That goes beyond not allowing publication of the name of the individual or supplier making the complaint. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are circumstances where an investigation could, in effect, give away who had made the complaint. In that circumstance it would be possible for the adjudicator to undertake a slightly wider investigation in terms of geographic scope or the types of vegetable being investigated, so that it would not be possible to identify which individual or supplier had come forward and made a complaint.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. Morally, it is incumbent on anyone who comes across evidence of appalling crimes, such as human trafficking, to ensure that it is presented to the appropriate authorities so that they can take action.

Even without fines, there are financial consequences for retailers who breach the code. There may be internal costs of complying with an investigation, such as the cost of sending senior executives to give evidence to the adjudicator. The adjudicator will have the ability to make a retailer who has breached the code pay the costs of the investigation. It is also our intention that the retailers who cause the adjudicator the most trouble should pay a greater share of the levy. Taken together, those factors will reward good behaviour and discourage non-compliance.

[Mr Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make a little progress, because he has already intervened.

It benefits no one to reach straight for fines before we have exhausted the other options. We seek to impose a proportionate and effective solution. A move straight to fines would risk creating an unnecessarily adversarial environment, which would ultimately detract from our key objective of achieving long-lasting change in the culture of retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

That should be in the hands of the adjudicator. We are asking the adjudicator to do a job to assess whether someone has breached the code. The adjudicator should therefore be given the power to determine the sanction. If the sanction is to seek recommendations, then that is the sanction. If the sanction is to name and shame, then that is the sanction. If the sanction is a fine, we should leave that in the hands of the adjudicator to determine. That could be a debating point in Committee. The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position, but the argument is whether financial penalties should be in the Bill. If they are, the Secretary of State could then propose that fines be within certain parameters, or up to the adjudicator, or a proportion or a multiple of the loss achieved by a particular supplier. There are a plethora of ways for an adjudicator to determine a financial penalty. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “I don’t know,” but the Government have not told us what they would propose. Yes, we do not know how much the fine should be. That would be up to the adjudicator, within parameters applied in respect of the Secretary of State, to determine how much a fine should be, and that should be in the Bill.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those charged with the responsibility for spreading the message of the naming and shaming will be the same publications taking the advertising revenue? I wonder how much enthusiasm to naming and shaming there will be from those publications, when that might put their own advertising revenue in jeopardy.

[Ian Murray]

That is a wonderful point, and I think we now have our second candidate for the Committee—or given that helpful comment, perhaps not. The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a conflict of interest. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned the large full-page adverts that supermarkets produce relating to fair trade. Indeed, if it is about advertising revenues, there will be a conflict of interest, and I hope that the adjudicator would take that into account. If fines were included in the Bill, an adjudicator could balance up what would be the best punishment for a particular crime and deal with it in that way. By hamstringing the adjudicator from day one on fines, we are merely pushing down some of those routes by which questions would have to be answered.

Let me run through some of the issues relating to the adjudicator potentially being toothless, which is why we are calling for fines to be available to the adjudicator from day one. We are not the only people who are calling for that. In January 2009, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the current Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food, who has been chuntering on about fines for the past few minutes—said, when he was an Opposition spokesperson all those many months ago, that there must be “an ombudsman with teeth” to ensure that farmers get a fair deal. I wonder whether he and his colleagues will support our amendments in Committee to give the adjudicator such powers, because they did not support them in the other place. He is not the only one. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said last year:

“I agree with my hon. Friend and other Members that the adjudicator must have real teeth so that they can take action to stop abuses.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 240WH.]

Just this weekend, a host of stakeholders wrote an open letter to The Sunday Telegraph. It is worth my quoting from it, because it touches on the crucial part of the Bill:

“Sir, Having got the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill this far, the government will be scoring an own goal if it denies the supermarket watchdog the one tool that will make it effective: the power to levy fines from the outset. The evidence of supermarkets’ unfair treatment of suppliers—which includes farmers both here and in developing countries—is all too clear. Watering down the bill so that penalties only go as far as ‘naming and shaming’ will not be a sufficient deterrent and the Adjudicator risks failing in its job to hold supermarkets to account.”

That letter was signed by ActionAid UK, the National Farmers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Traidcraft, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Independent Fruit Growers Association, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Friends of the Earth, War on Want, RedOrange and Great Glemham Farms. Clearly, then, there is a great movement to provide for fines in the Bill, and I cannot understand why the Government have not listened to the letter.

We are in danger of creating this toothless tiger—I have “tiger”, but it could be a dog, I suppose. Let us imagine an old-fashioned circus act. Where is the fear in a circus clown putting his head into a tiger’s mouth, only to have his neck viced by the tiger’s gums? There is no way we can put fear into the hearts of the supermarkets with an adjudicator that does not have the power to fine. Providing for fines in the Bill does not mean that fines should be imposed on retailers randomly—I hope there would never have been sufficiently serious breaches to require the invoking of the power—but allowing the adjudicator to have the power easily to hand might influence the retailers’ actions and go some way in preventing serious breeches of the code.

Clause 9 gives the adjudicator the power to fine retailers, subject to permission from the Secretary of State. Even if the adjudicator decided that the power to fine was necessary, several considerable hurdles would have to be jumped. First, the adjudicator, who would be best placed to decide whether fines were appropriate, would have to publish guidance in deciding the amount of financial penalty—a point that goes back to the Minister’s intervention. Secondly, once that had been given to the Secretary of State, he would have to consult stakeholders on the guidance. Finally, a statutory instrument would have to be presented to Parliament and passed by affirmative resolution. This hugely drawn-out process will do nothing to instil much-needed confidence in farmers and small businesses that might have been severely affected by a breach of the code by a retailer that the adjudicator thinks merits a fine.

We must trust the adjudicator to issue remedies fairly. By not providing in the Bill for the power to fine, the Government are in danger of scoring an own gaol, as said in The Sunday Telegraph letter from ActionAid. Indeed—if I may continue with the footballing analogy—a red card could be issued. It would be available to the adjudicator in the case of a penalty, but it would not be in its breast pocket, where it could be issued fast and effectively against the offender if necessary. Essentially, we are saying in the Bill that if the referee wants to issue a red card, he will have to ask the Football Association, after which the FA will consult on its use and then pass a new law to allow it to be used. I much suspect that the match would have finished many months before the decision is made.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have also said that the power to fine should be provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, in a recent joint statement, the Grocery Market Action Group, ably chaired by the hon. Member for St Ives and made up of 23 organisations from across the farming, international development, environmental and small business lobbies, called on the Government to give the adjudicator the power to levy fines. I ask the Minister, again, why she is not listening to the entire industry when it comes to fines.

I turn to the intermediaries. At the bottom of all this lies the nagging doubt that many of the alleged abuses will not be resolved even by the presence of a perfectly functioning adjudicator, because the problem is in the code itself, not its implementation. Central to this idea is the code’s limited scope—this point has been raised by voices across the sector—as much of the bad practice occurs at the level of intermediaries not covered by the code and therefore the adjudicator. For example, let us imagine that a supermarket has a ready meal supplier, but decides it wants fewer carrots in the ready meal and goes through the proper GSCOP processes to remove carrots. The supermarket can do that legitimately under the code, and that is only right. However, the ready meal supplier will buy those carrots from a carrot supplier, and could therefore dismiss one of its suppliers of carrots or change the terms of the contract without any recall to the groceries code. In that example, nothing would have gone wrong according to the groceries code, so we could see suppliers further down the chain being harmed quite considerably by the decision of an intermediary.

Equally, that binary view of the market seems inappropriate when the supplier is a huge manufacturer of branded goods, such as Unilever, Kraft, Nestlé or Coca-Cola, whose turnover may exceed that of even the retailer. We are protecting the relationship rather than the carrot producer further down the chain. The adjudicator will be required to recommend changes to the code to the Office of Fair Trading, yet the British Retail Consortium claims that the OFT has taken no action to offer feedback on the annual reports that its members have already submitted under GSCOP on their implementation of the code or even to publish them.

Many farmers and growers are currently not covered by the code, as they do not directly supply the 10 largest retailers. Nevertheless, they are often the ultimate victims of unfair behaviour and the transfer of risks and costs. We hope that ensuring that retailers comply with the code will resolve those issues. If, despite the adjudicator’s best efforts, those problems persist, primary producers will continue to struggle to make a fair return for their enterprises and consumers will continue to suffer from the subsequent lack of investment. That is why it is critical that the adjudicator should have the power in the Bill to keep the code live, to enable such issues to be dealt with if the adjudicator deems that to be necessary. May I ask the Minister what consideration she has given to those concerns and whether she will come back to us in Committee with an assessment of the issues affecting intermediaries?

Finally—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I was going to come on to. An individual’s shopping habits are determined by all sorts of factors. I do not know what evidence there is, but I would guess that the perception of value for money at different retailers is an important criterion. Other factors are accessibility and personal habits and traditions. I do not see that the publication of an adverse report by the groceries code adjudicator about a particular retailer would affect many people’s shopping habits and, therefore, the bottom line of that retailer.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the opposite might be true, in that a supermarket whose brand is built around price point might gain kudos from squeezing its supply base so tight that it can deliver the lowest prices to the consumer?

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am sure that one could develop an argument along those lines. I hesitate to do so because I have an innate faith in good will and do not believe that a supermarket would be so unscrupulous as to do that. Perhaps he does not share my innate faith in the good will of supermarkets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Spencer]

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

[Andrew George]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a farmer, I am in the fortunate position of not supplying one of the major supermarkets, but I do, of course, know plenty of people in that position, including many of my constituents.

I broadly welcome the Bill. It is fantastic, it is timely, and the Government should be congratulated on the way in which they are addressing the current problem. It was with some frustration that I listened to the criticism from the Opposition Benches that it had taken two and a half years for legislation to be presented, given that, when in government, they presided over the rise of the supermarkets and the power that they gained.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Rather than referring to “criticisms”, perhaps, in this new atmosphere, we could refer to suggestions for improvements—which, in all fairness, have come not just from Opposition Members but from Government Members.

[Mr Spencer]

I shall be talking about possible improvements. I think that there is a fair amount of cross-party agreement on the way in which the Bill can be improved. However, I also want to talk about some of the good practice that we see out there. We have heard a great deal of criticism of supermarkets and the way in which things work, but there are plenty of examples of supermarkets and farmers working closely together to improve the supply chain, add wealth to both businesses, and bring employment to rural areas. I think we should recognise that there is more to be celebrated than there is to be criticised, although we need to ensure that when things go wrong, there is a way of stepping in to sort them out.

When I embarked on my business career, my grandfather told me that the definition of a good deal was “a bit for me, a bit for you, and then another deal”. I think that we have reached a stage at which the supermarket sometimes wields too much power in the relationship, to the extent that I almost feel obliged to make it absolutely clear that some of the practices that I intend to highlight bear no resemblance to the activities of any of my constituents. There is a genuine fear out there of blacklisting and being removed from the stocking lists of supermarkets, such is their power.

I think it worth examining the practices that have gone on in the agriculture industry and its relationship with supermarkets. The first that springs to mind, which no one has mentioned so far today, is the operation of payment terms, which the supermarkets have stretched to a point at which big business is being financed by little business. That applies not only to agriculture, but to many other UK industries in which little suppliers are delivering products to big suppliers. The big suppliers do not pay for more than 90 days, and the smaller producers are forced to borrow from their banks in order —in effect—to lend the money to them.

One of the most shocking practices, to which other Members have referred, is the practice of rejecting loads of products when the price of the market goes through the roof, when there is over-supply, or when the weather changes, as in the case of the strawberry industry. There is real abuse of the system when supermarkets are able to reject a load that is perishable and cannot be returned without giving any recompense to the primary producer.

I am told that when a contract is being negotiated with a supermarket, the first line of the negotiation relates not to the retail price, the production price or even the wholesale price, but to the margin that returns to the supermarket. The primary producer must guarantee that margin. That cannot possibly apply to any other relationship between supply and retail. Whether the product is cauliflowers, carrots, plimsolls or widgets, if the supermarket decides to arrange a promotion and reduce its retail value, the primary producer will lose out while the margin of the supermarket will be protected and never squeezed.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those margins are seen not only in the direct relationship between producers and major retailers, perhaps on contract terms, but throughout the supply chain? Sometimes a retailer will say “Well, it’s nothing to do with us, guv”, but somewhere along the line an intermediary will be saying, “We want those margins.”

[Mr Spencer]

That is a valuable point. There have been a number of references to the dairy industry, and to small dairy farmers all over the United Kingdom. It should be borne in mind that very few small dairy farmers deal directly with the supermarkets. They nearly always negotiate through a dairy producer, someone who is making cheese or yoghurt, or even a bottling plant. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and we shall probably need to consider it once we have sorted out the Bill.

Another important topic is that of promotions. Many consumers will no doubt think that “buy one, get one free” offers and other promotions show supermarkets’ generosity, as they must be shrinking their margins. The truth, however, is that it is the primary producers who pick up the tab for the reduced price of the product, and they are often also asked to increase the supply of that product.

Earlier in the year a series of adverts ran on TV promoting asparagus at half price. The weather had been so shocking that I do not think there can have been a single blade of English asparagus on the market at that time. I almost shuddered for our asparagus producers. Many of them had obviously signed a contract to supply a supermarket, and an advertising spot had been booked six months in advance, without regard to the weather. When that time slot in the calendar came, the adverts rolled out and asparagus producers were probably having to buy asparagus from Mexico or Spain to meet their contracts to supply that promotion. There is no flexibility in the system, or common sense from some supermarket buyers.

The worst practice, however, is backdating. A primary producer can supply a supermarket for two years, let us say, and then the supermarket can suddenly say to that producer, “By the way, we’re backdating the price of all that product you’ve supplied to us for the last 12 months, and you owe us £50,000.” That primary producer is then faced with the prospect of either finding that money from somewhere—borrowing it or taking it out of their bank account—or reneging on the contract and never being dealt with again. That truly is an abuse of power. I hope the grocery ombudsman will be able to stop such practices.

Key issues are what tools will be available to the ombudsman and how he will make sure the code of practice is adhered to. That brings us to schedule 3 and the subject that has been dominating the debate: if the adjudicator cannot fine supermarkets, will he have sharp enough teeth to ensure that the code is adhered to? I do not ask the Minister to commit to anything in his winding-up speech, but I ask him to assure us that he will have an open mind and will consider the Committee’s deliberations, and be willing to make an amendment if he feels that that is the right thing to do.

I reiterate that there is much more good than bad in this Bill and it represents a great step forward. With the will of the House and a fair wind, I think we can get to the right place for the primary producers, and also for our consumers, who want good quality food in our supermarkets at the right price, and, crucially, at a price that is sustainable.

Small dairy farmers begin the process of producing milk by choosing an animal to breed. They then breed that cow, which takes nine months, bring that heifer to full production, which takes two years, and then, finally, they get milk from that animal. It takes four years of hard work and investment to get to the point of supplying any milk, therefore. In that time, supermarkets can change their contract on an hourly basis. The whole of the risk is with the primary producer, and at present there are occasions when the whole of the reward is with the retailer. I sincerely hope that we can start to redress the balance in that relationship, to the benefit of supermarkets, primary producers and consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Much work was done by the previous farming and food Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), to get voluntary dairy codes in place. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is carrying on that good work. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said that we need to be sure that the groceries code adjudicator will be able to look at the voluntary codes and contracts. I repeat that it is essential that a share of the money that the consumer pays for his or her product goes to the processor and the producer.

We are moving into a world of some 7 billion people. That world does not have oceans of cheap food. In many ways, that is a good thing, but it is also difficult for consumers across the world. There are people in this country who are struggling to buy food and it is essential that they get a good deal. However, in order to get a good deal, we must ensure that the producer, be it of milk, beef, lamb, carrots, potatoes or other vegetables, gets a return. If they get a return on their investment, they will produce more food and do so efficiently. That is the way to ensure that we can deliver products at a good price on the supermarket shelf.

Some of the ways in which large buyers and retailers have abused their position over the years have made food prices higher rather than lower. In the short term, when the supermarkets have a price war that drives prices down, it seems like the consumer is getting a good deal, but it drives many people out of business, meaning that there is less production than there was before.

Until now it has been possible to go around the world and bring in the extra product that is needed. However, to take the meat sector, where is the beef that is out there in the world? Forty years ago, the Chinese were eating 500,000 tonnes of beef a year. Now, they are eating 5 million tonnes of beef a year. The UK produces about 1 million tonnes of beef, so one can see that instead of eating half as much beef as we produce, China is now eating five times that amount. All the beef that used to be sloshing around in Brazil and Argentina, which could once be bought cheaply and used, dare I say it, to drive down the price of beef in this country, is no longer there. That is why it is important not only to get things right for the consumer and the trade, but to ensure that we will have reasonably priced food in the future.

In the summer, 3,000 dairy farmers protested outside Westminster, and we had a huge meeting. It was absolutely right for the farmers to protest. They had some of the worst weather that I have seen in my lifetime, and the cost of producing milk went up while the price went down. However, is it right that those farmers with family farms have to march up the hill every time and show how desperate they are to make a fair living? Is it right that we have to use social media to name and shame supermarkets? Again, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made that point. It is not right. There is something wrong with the process of trade in this country, and that is why the groceries code adjudicator is so important.

We set much store by the Bill. Other hon. Members referred to the common agricultural policy and the single farm payments. All Members want farmers to get more money and more of their income. Farmers would much rather have more of their income from the market—from what they produce—than from what they receive in the single farm payment. They would thus not be so vulnerable to the politics of not only Britain, but the European Union.

The rising population, the need to produce more food from the same amount of land throughout the world, global warming, and the fact that northern Europe and Britain will need to produce much more food, mean that we should be able to get a good price for that food. However, if we have not got the market right, the price of food will not go back to the producer, and we will not produce the amount of food that we need.

There is a need for food security, and a moral issue about producing food. Some people in the world cannot afford to eat and it is therefore important that we produce more food—sustainably, and in an environmentally and animal-welfare friendly way. That is what our consumers want: to be sure that, when they go to a supermarket or a small retailer, they get they get a fair deal, and that that also applies to the producer and the grower, not only in this country, but in developing countries. Our supermarkets often do not give producers throughout the world a fair deal. Let us hope that the groceries code adjudicator can do that.

We have rightly talked a lot about the retailer and the producer today, but we must remember that nearly 500,000 people in this country are involved in food processing, and 80% of the food that they process is grown and produced in this country. The Bill is therefore good not only for the producer but for the processor and I believe that, in the end, it will be good for our supermarkets.

Much as one would perhaps enjoy a major war with the supermarkets and the big retailers, it is ultimately not a war that we want because where do 70%, 80% or even 90% of the population buy their food? They buy it in supermarkets—they want to shop there. We must be sure that, when they shop, the groceries code adjudicator will have enough teeth to ensure that the consumer, the producer and the processor—everyone in the food chain—get a fair deal.

[Mr Spencer]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that farmers need to bear some of the responsibility? Many dairy farmers, instead of selling to a co-operative, decided to trade direct. If they stuck together, they would be much stronger. Some farmers almost pay gate money to obtain those direct contracts, and steal contracts from other farmers, thereby contributing to their own downfall.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I often say that farmers’ great strength is their independence, although that can also be their great weakness. I welcome the deal between Milk Link and Arla Foods because this country now has a co-operative that controls some 25% of the milk, giving it real clout in the marketplace. It is right for farmers to come together and co-operate, and the Bill will help such co-operation within the farming, processing and retail sectors. As I said, no retailer has anything to fear from the groceries code adjudicator if they have the correct practices, and that is right. Finally, I say again that the Government welcome this Bill, but the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee must look to put real fines in place so that those who abuse the grocery trade can be brought to book, and not only named and shamed, but properly fined.

Ash Dieback Disease

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

That is absolutely right. We have actually allocated £8 million from existing resources for new research into tree health over the next four years, which I hope will go some way to supplementing what is already in place. There are question marks in the international scientific community over such things as the pathology of the organism and its means of transmission, which we need to explore more fully. The fact that those countries with a high level of infestation—Denmark, Germany, Poland and others in northern Europe—still do not have the answers to some of those questions indicates the complexity of the issue. It is not the case that Britain has not been playing its part; scientific research sometimes takes time.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that his officials are working with importers and nurseries to ensure that no affected stock remains that may be planted in the future, so that forests such as Sherwood stay not only clean and green, but great places to visit?

[Mr Heath]

We will continue the programme of inspection that has identified those saplings that may be a risk and destroyed them. The ban has been in place on a voluntary basis—it is now on a statutory basis—to ensure that nothing came into the country over this summer and therefore was not available for the next planting season. We can be reasonably assured that infected trees will not be planted this winter—at least those from commercial sources—but we need to maintain vigilance, which we certainly will do. We will also work closely with the industry, which understands how dangerous the disease is and wants to co-operate. I am grateful for the help it has given to the Department in identifying and dealing with the threat at an early stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, as I said earlier, what we are talking about is poverty. One thing that I have always stressed is that poverty exists right across the country, in rural areas as well as urban ones, and we need to deal with it. The Government have been taking action to help protect the most vulnerable, and we will continue to do so.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

What message would the Minister give to my local authorities, which are taking land out of food production to develop on the green belt when there are perfectly adequate brownfield sites available in the borough?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is tangentially related indeed to the question, which is not to be encouraged. I am bound to say that a brief reply of a sentence will suffice.

Badger Cull

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I am delighted to be called to speak, but of course disappointed that we are under such time restriction. I suppose it is a symptom of how engaged Members are with the subject that they want to get on their feet and speak about it.

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. As a Nottinghamshire farmer I am very much interested in the subject, because we have a healthy badger population and I am keen to ensure that it stays that way. We have talked about how TB is spreading across the south-west, and it is now in Derbyshire and certainly spreading towards me, which makes me fearful.

As a farmer operating in that part of the east midlands, it is difficult not to take offence at some of the things that have been said today. It has been implied that farmers do not care about animals and do not have animal welfare at the top of their agenda. I put it to individuals who make those accusations that someone simply does not get out of bed at 5 am every day of the week, every week of the year to look after animals if they do not care passionately about their welfare. The implication that people want a cull for the sake of a cull causes great offence in some rural areas, and that needs to be addressed vigorously.

For me, this is not about badgers. It is about TB. It is ironic and pretty disappointing that TB is not mentioned at all in the motion. Members on the opposite side of the argument have attempted to skew it away from tuberculosis control and solely on to badgers. We all have the same aim, which is to prevent the culling of cattle and the spread of bovine TB, and we have to use the tools that are available to us. It would be wrong to rule out one of those tools at this early stage.

I do not want to cull a single badger or a single cow, but this disease is out of control. We are not controlling it. One Opposition Member actually said that we should do nothing, but that seems to me like the Tinker Bell approach of standing still, closing our eyes and hoping it gets better. That does not seem like the answer to me. We have to take action and do something to control the spread of the disease.

We all welcome the fact that a vaccine is coming very soon, but it has been coming very soon for the past 15 years. In fact, we heard earlier that it is months away. I am delighted if that is the case, because then the vaccine will be here by next summer. However, if we get to next summer and no oral vaccine for badgers is available, we will be in the same position as we are in today. We have to take action to prevent the disease from spreading.

We have heard Members say that we should vaccinate badgers, but the practicality of that seems to have escaped them. Individual badgers would have to be physically caught and tagged to ensure that we could identify which had been vaccinated and which had not, so that we did not waste our time revaccinating the same badgers. We would have to go through the whole process again every 12 months, which is simply impractical.

We must somehow break the cycle of infection from cow to badger, badger to cow, badger to badger and cow to cow. We are doing one part of that, and by taking out infected cattle we are breaking the spread of the disease between cows, but we are not tackling the infected badger population, and we must find a way to do that. A vaccine is not available, and unfortunately the only other tool is a cull. We must make use of all the tools available if we are to be effective.

We are short of time so, in conclusion, we must remember the impact that bovine TB is having on UK food prices and milk production. We all get out of bed in the morning and enjoy milk on our cornflakes, but if we do not tackle this issue, the supply of fresh milk from our dairy farmers will be under severe pressure—and I, for one, want my cornflakes in the morning.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We have been round this course already. I recommend the hon. Lady goes back to Lord Krebs report of 1997. The executive summary, written by Lord Krebs, is a brilliant synopsis of the problem. He said that the evidence of a link between badgers and the disease was “compelling”. He is absolutely clear that there is a link. The debate is on how the cull should take place, which is what he has criticised. What we are proposing is pilots, and we believe we have come up with a more efficient and effective method. In case the hon. Lady missed the statement, I repeat that we are going for a much larger area with hard boundaries, such as major roads, motorways and rivers, and a more effective system of culling. That is entirely consistent with the scientific advice from Krebs and the RBCT.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for assisting me in trying to lose weight.

Farmers in Nottinghamshire find themselves in a fortunate position. The county is TB-free, so badgers are TB-free, but the disease is spreading towards us from Derbyshire. My farmers will be glad that the Secretary of State will use the whole toolbox to prevent their cattle becoming infected, but farmers in two-year and four-year testing parishes will want to know whether the testing intervals will be reduced in clean areas?

[Mr Paterson]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was speaking to the Minister of State and missed my hon. Friend’s question at the end. Could he possibly pose it again?

[Mr Spencer]

There is a conspiracy to make me bob up and down.

Farmers in Nottinghamshire find themselves in a TB-free zone and currently undergo testing on a four-year or two-year cycle. They will be concerned that there will be an attempt to reduce the interval between tests in clean areas. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to do so?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The annual testing that we glibly talk about poses an enormous burden on farmers and is a fraught event. Virtually the whole of the west of England is on annual testing, and he is absolutely right to fear for his farmers in Nottingham that the interval might be reduced, because putting a herd through the skin test is an horrendous experience. That is another good reason to get on top of the disease quickly, before it spreads into his area.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I hope he recognises that we are not talking about unskilled labour. The dexterity and speed with which some of those people can operate machinery and harvest shows great skill, and such skills would enable people to go on to employment later in their lives.

[Gordon Henderson]

Absolutely right—and training prisoners to become agricultural workers might encourage them to work on the land when they leave prison, which would solve another problem. One of the problems with getting prisoners to work, however, is that unemployed people who are not in prison resent inmates being given jobs that might otherwise go to them. Encouraging prisoners to take jobs that other domestic workers have turned their backs on, such as those jobs in agriculture, would solve that particular problem.

I have spoken to the governor of one of my three local prisons and he was keen to trial such a scheme. Cynics may say that prisoners would not want to work on farms, but until relatively recently Standford Hill open prison on Sheppey, in my constituency, operated a farm that supplied produce to the prison estate. The workers on the farm were, in the main, inmates and they were bitterly disappointed when the previous Government decided to close the farm down.

Even if such schemes were successful, there would still be a need for more labour than the domestic labour force could or would supply. As I said earlier, the present SAWS arrangements finish in 2013, but the Government have not yet made it clear whether they intend to introduce a successor scheme. I urge Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to press the Home Office to deal with the problem as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind that we are already in 2012. Farmers in my constituency are keen to see a replacement for SAWS in place before the end of this year. They want any new scheme not only to recognise the continued need for a certain number of overseas workers, but to maximise the potential use of local labour.

The National Farmers Union has put together a proposal that includes the following criteria, which it believes are critical to the overall architecture of a new SAWS scheme. Any new scheme should be overseen by the Home Office, as SAWS is now, and be managed by licensed operators, again as now, with an annual quota decided by the Home Office and the Migration Advisory Committee. A new scheme should include a robust system for checking arrivals, departures and return to the home country. It should go back to the origins of the original scheme, as a youth work experience programme. It should require operators to continue to recruit from the European Union in preference to non-EU applicants. However, a new scheme should be available to university-level students of agriculture or agriculture-related subjects from any country, with return arrangements with the UK.

To be consistent with Government policy, the new scheme should be contained within tier 5 of the points-based temporary workers and youth mobility system. As such, it could meet the UK’s cultural and international objectives. It should have a specific set of standards that are subject to an accreditation scheme managed by SAWS operators. Permission to work and to remain in the UK should be via a work card or specific visa category, and restricted to the dates on the work card, with a maximum period of six months.

Under the previous SAWS programme, agriculture students were often set assignments to complete during their placement. That should be encouraged under a new scheme. A more robust educational element could include, for example, the provision of English language lessons and on-the-job training. Growers should be encouraged to provide cultural activities in the local area to enable the community and the workers to experience each other’s culture.

In addition, the Government should try to encourage British citizens to work in the agriculture industry. Changing perceptions and improving the career development and progression opportunities in the horticulture sector are an important part of achieving success. The Government should consider adapting the UK benefits system to allow those on benefits not to lose their entitlement while undertaking work on a daily call basis. I am convinced that that would encourage inactive citizens to take on seasonal work.

Understandably, the employment of prisoners and ex-prisoners is a touchy subject, and employers approach it with a certain amount of caution. I believe that an offer of financial support for employers to train and mentor prisoners and ex-prisoners might encourage more widespread take-up under the scheme. Consideration should be given to a summer programme carrying vocational and academic credits in addition to cash pay. Hopefully, that would attract more students to work in the industry.

I turn to two issues of concern to my local farmers that will have an impact on the future prospects of employment in the agriculture industry in my area. First, reforms to the common agricultural policy are being discussed, and farmers are worried about the way in which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems to be trying to divert funds from pillar 1 direct payments to pillar 2 rural development funding. In particular, the greening component, which represents 30% of the value of direct payments, is conditional on additional environmental action on their land. That includes cultivating a minimum of three crops every year, retaining areas of permanent pasture, and ensuring that 7% of arable land is an environmental focus area.

British farmers believe that such a proposal would put them at a disadvantage because many of them have already adopted additional environmental measures on their farms through agri-environment schemes, and it would be difficult for them to set aside more land to comply with the greening proposal. Farmers believe that greening will reduce their overall competitiveness, making them more rather than less dependent on direct payments. I would welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of those concerns, and an assurance that they are being addressed.

Finally, my local farmers are worried about the delay in abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which they maintain restricts employers by demanding that they pay full wages for 16-year-olds, and which makes it difficult for agricultural workers to get a mortgage because they do not receive a salary. I would welcome an indication from the Minister of the proposed timetable for scrapping the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman knows the area well, and an advantage of the devolution of administration and powers is that we can, and should, learn lessons about differential applications across the UK. We need to do more within the joint committees that bring the devolved Administrations together and in discussions between Ministers, so that those lessons can be learned. He makes a good point. We should not always try to work from a completely blank sheet of paper, but look at what works well elsewhere.

Will the Minister provide us with the timetable for changes to the GLA? His written statement of 24 May was not clear on the consultation timetable or process. Is he in a position to provide us with that now? Will he confirm that the GLA will have the necessary resources to tackle worker exploitation in the relevant sectors, even under the new approach? We all want the GLA, in its revised form, to be lean, mean and effective, but that requires resourcing, so I seek assurances on that. Will he also provide information on how he intends the GLA to work more collaboratively with other organisations, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency?

I want briefly to talk about the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which I have discussed on several occasions with the Minister and other hon. Members. He knows how strongly I and the Labour party feel on the issue. That strength of feeling is shared by some of the farming unions, such as the Farmers Union of Wales, and by farm workers and the Welsh Government. The AWB protects 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales and has mirror effects on others in the sector. It ensures that people working in the countryside, from apprentices to farm managers, get a fair deal. In its 62-year history, it has provided basic pay and protection for fruit pickers, farm labourers and foresters. That covered wages, but also holidays, sick pay, overtime and bereavement leave.

The Minister will no doubt say—we have had this discussion many times—that many farmers pay well above the agreed wage rates; and I do not disagree. He may also say that there is a national minimum wage—so what is the fuss? However, the AWB does far more than set pay minimums, and when it is gone, the pay and other terms and conditions are threatened. The wages of 42,000 casual workers could drop as soon as those workers finish their next job, once the AWB is gone. It is probable that the wages of the remaining 110,000 will be eroded over time. Ministers have said in the past that farm workers will be protected by the minimum wage, but only 20% cent of farm workers are on grade 1 of the AWB. The rest earn considerably more than the minimum wage. The downward pressure on higher grades in economically difficult times will be high. Children who do summer jobs or part-time jobs currently receive just over £3 per hour, but they are not covered at all by the national minimum wage. They will have no wage protection—unless the Minister wants to correct me on that—when they do holiday work, as has been mentioned, or weekend work, after the board is abolished.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that agriculture has changed dramatically in the past 20 years? A combine harvester costs £250,000 and no farmer will put an unskilled member of staff in charge of machinery of that value. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about laser machinery for measuring asparagus. The salaries that are now attracted in agriculture are far above those provided for under the Agricultural Wages Board. I wonder whether times have moved on and it is no longer necessary.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Time will tell if we abolish the board. However, not only has the Farmers Union of Wales welcomed its retention in Wales—and discussions are ongoing to see how that can take effect if the AWB is abolished in England; it has said it welcomes the clarity that the board gives on a range of conditions for agricultural workers. That is particularly true for small farmers who do not want to get into endless discussions about individual contracts, with different people on different wages for essentially the same job, and consequent disputes. The AWB provides a very good service for an industry that is often fragmented and disparate. The point that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) makes about modern technology and food processing is valid for many parts of the industry, but things are not uniformly like that. That is why the Labour party sees the AWB as providing a safety blanket, to ensure that all workers’ terms and conditions are properly protected.

DEFRA’s own figures suggest that the abolition of the AWB will take £9 million a year out of the rural high street through holiday and sick pay alone—that will be £9 million coming out of the rural economy, because it is not going into people’s pockets in one way or another. That is not an insignificant figure, and it is worthy of further consideration. In the 18 months or so since the Government announced their intention to abolish the AWB, a lot has changed. The economy has gone into a double dip recession. The cost of living has risen dramatically. Food and fuel prices have risen well above inflation. Overall unemployment is up, and youth unemployment is chillingly high at more than 1 million. As we watch developments on the continent unfold day by day, it appears there will be no improvement in people’s circumstances for some time yet. A study commissioned by The Guardian and published this week showed that almost 7 million working-age adults are living in extreme financial stress, from pay cheque to pay cheque, one push from penury, despite being in employment and largely independent of state support. Many of those will be agricultural workers in rural communities.

I ask the Minister to think again. Why, against that backdrop, do the Government insist on pressing ahead with the policy, taking money out of the rural economy and the pockets of rural agricultural workers, and making things harder for people, many of whose wages will fall as a result? Those in rural areas already face significant challenges in housing, transport and access to schools. The abolition of the AWB may prove another difficult hurdle to overcome. However, if the Minister is determined to press ahead, I want to ask some additional questions. We are all awaiting an announcement on when the AWB will be abolished, but we have not had that clarity yet. Yesterday evening, I met with the farmers unions—and some farmers unions, of course, support the abolition. They were asking when there would be clarity and a timetable: when will it happen? When does the Minister intend to lay an order before the House abolishing the AWB? Farmers’ patience is being stretched. In the mean time, can he confirm that negotiations with the AWB for the year ahead have been concluded? Will the pending abolition affect those? Has he asked his Department to reassess the proposals in the light of current economic circumstances? If not, why not?

I recently submitted a freedom of information request to the Minister’s Department for the impact assessment of the abolition of the AWB. It was rejected. No doubt he will explain why, and give the normal Whitehall reasons, but his response implied that the assessment would be published soon, so when will we see it? We want to get behind the detail, to see what the effect will be on rural communities. In the absence of the impact assessment, will the Minister guarantee that, on the abolition of the AWB, children will not be paid below the minimum wage, that the wages of workers in AWB pay bands will not be depressed, that rents on farm cottages will not rapidly escalate to full market value, or tenants be turfed out because they cannot afford them, and that when new recruits are taken on it will not be on inferior terms, creating a two-tier work force for the same jobs?

If the Minister doubts that that might happen, and thinks it is only I who say it, I refer him to the Incomes Data Services report for the Low Pay Commission, “The implications for the National Minimum Wage of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in England and Wales”. What does the change mean for the national minimum wage, where the Government’s defence lies— “Don’t worry, the NMW will take care of this”? The report states:

“Once abolished, many of the provisions of the Order will either be only partially covered by other statutory employment legislation, or not at all. Employment legislation does not make any provision for specific rates of pay linked to skills, specific rates of pay for overtime, a minimum rate of pay for workers of compulsory school age, rights to paid training, standby duty and night allowances, entitlement to paid bereavement leave, a birth or adoption grant”

and so on. It also states that

“abolition removes protection for young workers of compulsory school age”

and that

“the statutory minimum rates for both workers aged 16 to 20 and apprentices will be significantly less under the NMW than they currently are under the Agricultural Wages Order.”

Hon. Members have spoken passionately about the need to enhance skills and training in the agricultural sector, but the report states clearly that the wages of apprentices and those learning their skills will be depressed.

The report states:

“There may also be issues around the accommodation offset, whereby in some cases agricultural workers may be worse off under the NMW rules”,

and it explains why:

“There is no such threshold under the NMW”

for workers’ accommodation. It also states:

“The NMW rules on accommodation offset allow deductions to be made even if the worker could have lived elsewhere. This could mean that agricultural workers who are not currently subject to the accommodation offset…could be subject to it in future.”

It continues:

“On piece work, agricultural piece workers are currently guaranteed to get at least the minimum rate appropriate to their grade.”

That is more favourable than the national minimum wage approach,

“where slower workers can earn less than NMW if a properly assessed ‘fair’ piece rate is applied.”

It is not true to say that the abolition of the AWB is not a problem because the national minimum wage will deal with the issues. There is far more to the AWB’s terms and conditions than that, which is why I am asking the Minister to think again.

I thank the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for raising this important debate, and thank all hon. Members for some very good contributions. We want to see a rural economy that works for all working people. It should be fair across the board, as these are tough times for all those who work in agriculture. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Rural Communities

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

That proposal is welcome. In some areas, of course, it has been subject to bigger planning obstacles than predicted, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made to the planning process, certainly in England. If my community is anything to go by—this is particularly true in the national park, although I do not want to get personal about the national park—even small developers have to pay a significant sum, almost by way of a hidden tax, to undertake such development, and that is a disincentive. I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s positive message, but there are some negative ones, too, and we need to address them if such proposals are to be universally fair.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a fundamental need to distinguish between protecting and preserving the countryside, which are two different things? To protect the countryside, we need development and change so that communities can expand and look after their schools and shops.

[Simon Hart]

I wish I had thought of that myself because it is such an important point. We are sometimes distracted by the preservation argument, but the countryside is actually all about people, jobs and communities, and the landscape, which we are sometimes fixated by, is only a consequence of the tender stewardship of generations of dedicated enthusiasts of the rural big society. My hon. Friend is right to point out that unless we have the conditions and facilities to encourage that, everything else we, the nation and our foreign visitors admire about the countryside will be compromised.

My next question for the Minister—it is not a sarcastic question—is which bits of the recent Budget does he believe give hope and encouragement to businesses in rural areas? Which bits remind them that they should welcome life under the coalition and let them see some sort of vision arising out of the Chancellor’s recent comments?

In drawing to a conclusion, I want to refer to the views of voters and constituents in west Wales. I do not know whether I am unique in this respect, but voters in my area do not really give a damn where the Prime Minister went to school. They have no interest whatever in who he might or might not have to dinner, and they certainly have no interest in what might or might not be on his tax return. All they want to know is whether the Government are bold, trustworthy and competent, and whether the Government’s values are the same as theirs. Those are the things I get asked about—not all the other fluff and nonsense that floats around this place from time to time—and they probably reflect the views of rural, and indeed urban, people across Britain.

In my short opening remarks, I hope I have been able to provide an absolutely open goal for the Minister to aim at. I hope he can convince us that we can continue proudly to defend the reputation of the Conservative party as the party of the countryside.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I hope—as, obviously, does the hon. Gentleman—that the virus does not spread as far as Wales. We believe that it has come, midge-borne, across the channel, and, as I said earlier, we hope that it will not continue to spread. However, we do not consider it necessary to revisit the issue of the two laboratories in Wales. As has been said repeatedly before Committees at which the hon. Gentleman has been present, we believe that the overall laboratory services will be sufficient, under the reorganisation, to continue the surveillance.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that any plans he makes to restrict livestock movements will involve proportionate measures, so that those involved in embryo or semen exports are not affected?

[Mr Paice]

I assure my hon. Friend that we have no plans to introduce any export restrictions, and that, although one or two third-party states are beginning to raise question marks over not just UK but European livestock because of Schmallenberg, any further regulations will be based on the best scientific advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry]

As may come up later, those churches that use SmartWater or that install roof alarms have found that the incidence of metal theft has been substantially reduced. SmartWater and roof alarms are not necessarily that expensive and I hope that all churches will look at how they can improve security to deter metal theft.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the Church Commissioners have had discussions with English Heritage about allowing fibreglass replacements of lead roofs so that the crime is no longer a temptation?

[Tony Baldry]

We are in continuous discussions with English Heritage about what can be done in replacing lead roofs, but 60% of grade-I listed buildings in this country are Church of England churches, and there are some restraints as a consequence of those listings.

Rio+20 Summit

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I shall do my best to be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow colleagues time.

I first wish to put on record my appreciation of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has not only secured the debate but done extensive work with the Environmental Audit Committee. She has had an extensive career working on environmental issues, and I appreciate her efforts over a number of years.

The Government have a fine line to walk. Clearly the United Kingdom wants to be seen to be leading the world on environmental issues, and we have a moral responsibility to go to Rio and negotiate the best deal that we can for the globe. At the same time, however, we have to ensure that the rest of the world comes with us. That will be crucial as we move forward. We need to be seen to be leading the demand for improvements to protect the world in which we live, but we cannot be seen to be charging over the hill and leaving everybody else behind. We have to take people with us.

It is also worth putting on record that we have nothing to fear from a green agenda. In fact, just the opposite—the UK has everything to gain from moving towards a green economy. We have seen that in our own constituencies. My constituents have embraced solar power in their desire to put panels on their roofs and partake of free energy from the sun. It is crucial to recognise that we are pushing at an open door, because our constituents are keen to get on board as long as they can see the benefits to themselves. It is important not only that we achieve things but that we take the general public with us. They are very keen, and for the next generation—my children’s generation—having a little dial in the kitchen telling them what energy they are generating from solar panels and what energy they are consuming will be very powerful. The Government need to push such ideas.

That leads me to science and technology, which will be crucial. Science has a great deal to offer in solving some of the problems that we face on Earth, and the Government should embrace science and technology and try to find more methods of doing things more efficiently. We must ensure that new technology is brought forward.

One technology that is particularly relevant to the Sherwood constituency is carbon capture. Sherwood is a former Nottinghamshire coalfield and coal is a crucial part of my constituency, but we all recognise the global warming problems that coal causes. If we can find a solution to catching carbon from those polluting power stations, there is an opportunity to make use of the Earth’s natural resources without releasing carbon. As we open new technologies such as shale gas, as long as we do not release carbon into the atmosphere, we have a wider window for improving technologies to make them more renewable and, as it were, less traditional. That could be a great benefit not only to this country, but to the world.

At the same time, we need to recognise our nation’s energy security position and how crucial it is for us to find new sources of energy so that we are not dependent on other nations to produce energy for us. We have a great thirst for energy and power, and it is important for us to find new sources of renewable energy. Solar is a good example, but another one that I should like to flag up is anaerobic digestion, which has a great future. My constituents recognise the benefits of anaerobic digestion. Anybody who is offered the choice of an energy recovery plant, an incinerator or an anaerobic digester within their community will always go for an anaerobic digester, because it does not involve a chimney pot. Anaerobic digestion has a great deal to offer the nation, and with that method we can produce energy using biogas—I want the Government to push that.

Another issue that I want to highlight—I hope the Government take it seriously—is water. Western nations drag water around the world and pull it from water-stressed places. We are all keen to eat asparagus and strawberries in December, but as consumers, we sometimes do not give a thought to the impact that that might have globally. That links to other Departments, and I hope the Minister recognises how important it is that the whole of the Government climb on board with the Rio agenda. I am thinking of projects funded by the Department for International Development. UK taxpayers’ money could be used, for example, for a project such as building a power station in a third world country, which is an honourable project. However, it is important that that power station does not burn carbon fuels, or if it does, that it has carbon capture and storage. It is also important that UK taxpayers’ money is not used to devise water systems—for hydroelectricity or irrigation—if that will impact on a community downstream and leave it without a clean water source and unable to live a normal life. UK consumers need to be mindful of the impact we have on the global ecosystem.

I mentioned taking the world with us and keeping pace, and another issue that needs highlighting in that respect is carbon leakage. The last thing we want is for the UK Government to take firm action over energy-intensive industries only for those industries to relocate to another part of the world and for us to import its products. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is keen to see the success of the ceramics industry in the UK. It would be a tragedy if, for example, the steel, cement and ceramics industries left for other parts of the world and continued to burn enormous amounts of energy in an unenvironmental way, and if we continued to import those products. It is crucial that we move at the right pace on carbon leakage. We support those industries in reducing the amount of energy that they use, but we can do that only in a global context.

My final point is also on technology. It is almost impossible to separate the issues of food and energy. If we are to solve the problem of feeding the world and keeping it warm at the same time, we must make use of new technologies and scientific innovations. I am keen to see the introduction and use of genetic modification technologies, which are already used extensively in the US, South America and China. There is a danger that the EU will be left behind on GM technology. The Government need to lead independent research—I emphasise independence—into GM technology, so that UK consumers can be confident not only that it is a safe technology, but that it offers rewards.

Finally—I know I have said “finally” already, but this really is finally—we need to bear in mind that if we are unable to secure the support of the rest of the world and if it does not come with us, we need to look at the practical implications for the UK. That is probably the most controversial thing I have said. If we are unable to drag the rest of the world with us, the impact of global warming on the UK will be catastrophic. If other nations around that table are not supportive, our communities will be at severe risk of flooding and weather conditions. The Government must then consider how we are to mitigate the symptoms of global warming for those communities. There is a balance to strike in that situation. Do we spend taxpayers’ money on trying to reduce our carbon footprint, or do we spend it on mitigating the symptoms of the world’s inability to act to curb carbon release? That will be an enormous challenge not only for the UK, but for the rest of the world.

I thank the House for its time and look forward to the rest of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As this debate has shown, there is considerable scepticism about the prospect of getting much change. The hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) said that in recent evidence sessions there has been a downbeat response about what has happened over the past 20 years. The media coverage of the build-up to Rio has revealed concern about the fact that the summit will last for only three days, rather than the 14 days of the original summit. Many people are saying in insistent tones that this must not just be a talking shop, which points to the horrible possibility that it might end up being precisely that.

We must ask why we always seem to end up in such a situation when addressing these issues. We feel very optimistic and set great targets, but a few years down the line we find ourselves wringing our hands and asking why nothing has happened. I am a great believer in the UN and I think it is fantastic that we can pull countries together to discuss common challenges, but we must also be honest with ourselves about some of the UN’s limitations. It can bring people together to agree goals and targets, but it cannot take final decisions on policy or implement policies in individual countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) talked about the idea of holding a summit of global legislators. I support that, and wish him the best of luck in making it work. There is something more fundamental that we need to try to do alongside that, however: we must lead by example. We must come up with good ideas, implement them and demonstrate that they can work so that they become, as it were, contagious and spread around the world and other Governments adopt them, too.

[Mr Spencer]

One of the major challenges that we, as a western democracy, face is that some of the things that we are trying to achieve are not very popular. For example, we are addicted to consuming, but we need to reduce our consumption. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that education of the next generation to ensure that they are better than we have been in such regards will be key?

Welfare of Laying Hens Directive

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. The last parish notice that I want to draw attention to is my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a free-range egg producer.

This matter has been a long time coming. For 12 years, the EU has had the legislation in place. Some colleagues have already referred to the pig industry. In the Sherwood constituency, a number of pork producers have disappeared over the past 10 years simply because we introduced legislation to improve animal welfare and our colleagues in the EU did not do so at the same speed. In effect, we exported our pig industry to Holland and Poland, which produced cheaper pork products due to their lower animal welfare standards. We are in danger of allowing that to happen again to our egg producers, which is simply morally unjustifiable. Any assistance that the Minister can give to our egg industry—I know that he is working hard to make it a fair playing field—would be most welcome.

The matter comes down to policing. Who will police the issue to ensure that the legislation is enforced and that we can deliver that fairness not only for our farmers but for hens crammed into tiny cages for their whole lives? The Government clearly have a role to play, if they can find a way to enforce this. Producers also have a role in ensuring that consumers and the general public understand the issue. It is important to include food production in the curriculum, so that people understand it, because more such issues will inevitably occur.

Let us cast our minds back to how some of our colleagues on the continent took direct action. Many hon. Members will remember images of Welsh lamb being pulled out of refrigerated lorries and burned by our colleagues over the channel and how the Germans put a unilateral ban on British beef some years ago because they decided there was a safety issue. We are very passive in the UK at times—we play by the rules and we play fair—which is sometimes to our disadvantage. We need to find a legal way to ensure that we deliver.

My real call is to consumers of products to put pressure on retailers and food producers to ensure they have the criteria in place, so that those egg products are sourced from enriched cages or free-range units, and not from battery hens. The power of the market will deliver, but that will require consumers to put people under pressure. In a restaurant, if we order a boiled egg, we ask “Is this free range?” but we never ask where our mayonnaise, or products that involve egg paste, come from. If we buy a sausage roll, it is probably basted with an egg wash, but we never ask if the egg is free range.

Consumers have a big role to play in applying genuine pressure. Every time they go for a pub meal, they should ask the manager whether the eggs are free range, and when they buy mayonnaise in the supermarket, they should write to the mayonnaise company asking whether it is made from free-range or enriched-cage eggs. In that way, the market will deliver, and the £400 million that British producers have invested will have been worth their while. Perhaps we can find a way to support British egg producers, who have the highest welfare standards and the best quality eggs in the world. If we can get that message across, I am sure that we will work our way through this.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

We have plenty of time before the winding-up speeches, if any other colleagues wish to contribute. I call Huw Irranca-Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

As we know, Council directive 1999/74/EC will make it illegal to have laying hens in conventional battery cages across the EU from 1 January 2012, after which date egg production will be allowed only in enriched colony or non-cage systems; for example, free range, barn or organic. We have heard today that Members on both sides of the House agree that that is appropriate, and there has been none of the discussion about gold-plating that we often have with EU regulations. The directive has been welcomed, both for animal welfare and for food production standards, and it might well benefit UK production and producers, if we can get it right. It is also good for the quality of the eggs and egg products that we eat every day. The significant problem is that not every EU nation will comply with the directive—13 of them will not—which poses enormous challenges for the UK egg industry. The industry’s response to the Minister’s written ministerial statement on 6 December 2011 was that it feels “totally let down” by Ministers on this important matter, and I want to look today at why it feels that way and at what must be done.

I compliment the UK egg industry on its responsible approach to the directive over a number of years, with investment in the region of £400 million to convert conventional cages to enriched ones. The capital cost of an enriched colony unit is between £20 and £24 per bird place, and the National Farmers Union has stated that for a producer with a medium-sized cage unit of about 100,000 birds the cost of erecting the new units is, on average, in excess of £2 million—not an insignificant amount. Free-range egg producers have also invested heavily in preparation for the directive, and that has been a draw on the industry, which, as has been mentioned, is a competitive market that does not receive EU support. The NFU has also stated that the majority of birds in the UK will be in enriched cages by January 2012, which is to be welcomed, and that all lion scheme producers will be converted in time.

A lot of work has been going on over recent years, with many people investing heavily to comply, but the problem is that the UK is not self-sufficient in eggs and egg products. We import 15% of our egg requirements, and valid concerns remain about whether imports from January 2012 onwards will come from EU nations that comply with the directive, and about the possible impact on the UK egg industry, including on prices. One of the industry’s fears is that prices will be driven down, with cheaper eggs and lower standards.

In a move that was openly welcomed by the UK egg industry, the Minister recently dangled the potential for a unilateral ban on eggs from EU nations that do not comply. However, in his statement last week, he decided that it was “not a realistic option”. Having raised that possibility, why can the Minister not now deliver it? It will leave many egg farmers feeling that he failed them.

What has the Minister delivered? He has given an unequivocal assurance that DEFRA and the devolved Administrations will enforce the conventional cage ban from 1 January 2012. I think that everybody in this debate will welcome that and how the industry, the devolved Administrations and DEFRA have risen to the challenge. He also stated that a risk-based surveillance scheme would be introduced to ensure that imported shell eggs from other member states produced in compliance with the cage ban would be in place from 1 January 2012. [Interruption.] He is nodding.

The Minister also said that Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency surveillance would be conducted on imports of shell eggs, using ultraviolet light analysis, to identify batches of caged eggs that are not from an enriched environment. However, he also acknowledged that due to the loophole in the egg marketing regulations, he could not prohibit the marketing of egg products from conventional cages sent for processing, nor could he prohibit the use of products made from such eggs. That is a significant loophole.

However, the Minister made the welcome announcement that retailers, food manufacturers, food service companies and processors have come out in public support of the UK egg industry. I do not make many puns in debates such as this, but those good eggs, reflecting earlier campaigns on the issue, are to be complimented on the steps that they have taken and will take. The British Retail Consortium, whose members include McDonald’s, Starbucks, the four major supermarkets and many other brand names, will ensure that they do not buy conventional caged eggs or use them in their products. Furthermore, he outlined that the Government would make necessary changes to the Government buying standards’ mandatory criteria to ensure that eggs produced in conventional cages are not used in any form, whether fresh, powdered or liquid.

After that seemingly wide-ranging set of measures, why does nobody in the industry seem happy? I suggest to the Minister that it may be a case of trying to look busy while failing to deliver the one thing that he strongly hinted was possible, a unilateral ban. The industry is now being overwhelmed with many different initiatives as a diversion. Perhaps they will forget the fact that they think they have been led up the garden path. It is a classic case of over-promising and under-delivering, which is never a good strategy.

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

The British Egg Industry Council says that the measures are not good enough and that the Government could have introduced a complete ban on all illegal products in the UK. Its chief executive, Mark Williams, said:

“The UK egg industry feels totally let down by the Government. Whilst we have received repeated platitudes of support from DEFRA, it has failed to back these up with any real action. Our legal advice has confirmed that the UK Government is able to enforce UK and EU law by banning illegal eggs and egg products, so why have they chickened out?”

That is his pun, not mine.

Although the National Farmers Union has welcomed the measures taken by Government, it has stated categorically that

“our members will certainly be bitterly disappointed that it has not been possible to take tougher action.”

One British egg farmer, Duncan Priestner, echoed the concerns of many, including the NFU, when he said this week that he feared some food producers would be tempted to buy eggs from illegal systems in Europe, because they will be cheaper. He said:

“It will drive down the prices that farmers get. Like the pig industry”,

which has been referred to,

“that will put us in a very difficult financial position."

[Mr Spencer]

The UK is clearly not the only country in the EU that will be compliant on 1 January. Does the shadow Minister know of any other Ministers in the European Union who will take unilateral action within their own country?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I will come to that, if he will bear with me. There is a case, if not for unilateral action, then for doing what the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee suggested and considering the possibility that like-minded countries might take multilateral action to enforce the EU directive much more rigorously and aggressively and in a joined-up way. There are like-minded countries out there. With my limited experience of EU negotiations, I suggest to the Minister that that is a fruitful way forward. We should be sitting down with those of the same mind and discussing how to work within the EU directive after 1 January. Even if we cannot do it unilaterally—I will ask about the legal advice in a moment—we could do it in a joined-up way with like-minded countries. As I have given him that forewarning, I am sure that he will be able to tell me what discussions are occurring.

The good work of the NFU Poultry Board has been referred to. Its chairman, Charles Bournes, said:

“We are concerned that although the Government has repeatedly pledged its support for the industry, it cannot prohibit the use of illegal egg products and food manufactured from such products.”

On the back of those comments, I have a series of questions for the Minister.

Given that the British Egg Industry Council and others have stated that their legal advice is that a unilateral ban is possible, will the Minister publish the legal advice that he received on whether the Government would be able to enforce a unilateral ban on the import of conventional caged eggs? As he knows, we requested that advice in a written parliamentary question last week. We expect the Department’s reply any day now, if not today.

In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Sherwood, will the Minister update us on whether he intends to work with like-minded countries to see whether a rigorous form of enforcement or a multilateral ban could be employed by other countries that have complied with the directive and are concerned for their own industries? It is not only about supporting British industry; it is also about supporting higher animal welfare standards. I am sure that those countries would be willing to work on that, with some good negotiation and persuasion from the Minister.

In the absence of full compliance from 1 January, will the Minister commit to making a quarterly statement to the House about the progress he is making within the EU on negotiations, particularly on getting the 13 other members to implement the directive fully, and on what additional work he as a Minister, his officials at DEFRA and UKRep are undertaking to level up the playing field promptly? Will he also update Parliament on the level of non-compliant imports? I think that we will all be extremely concerned if, as a result of the non-level playing field after 1 January, imports increase, particularly eggs and egg products from non-conventional and enriched cages.

We have all seen the recent furore under this Government over humans arriving in airports and ports and being waved through. What hope is there for eggs? What assurance can the Minister give people who are sceptical that imports can be checked for compliance with the EU directive? As an hon. Member said in the debate earlier, what specific additional resources will the Minister make available for policing the directive, and at what cost?

AHVLA surveillance of imports of shell eggs will use ultraviolet light analysis. I understand that the method has not been used specifically to identify different types of caged egg production, although it has been used to identify eggs from alternative systems. What assurance can the Minister give that that type of monitoring is 100% effective? If it is not 100% effective, what level of surety do we have that it is an effective way to monitor and police egg imports? His recent statement made little mention of powdered or liquefied egg. What assurance can he give that imported powdered or liquefied egg will not come from hens in conventional cages?

Will the Minister push the European Commission to take swift action with meaningful financial penalties against any country guilty of non-compliance on shell eggs or egg products after 1 January? Will he take a hard line in discussions with the European Commission on non-compliant countries? That would give some assurance to egg producers in this country that there was at least an attempt, in the way we know other countries do with us, to try and level up the playing field rapidly. What can the Minister do to ensure that the UK egg industry will not be undercut on price by eggs and egg products from conventional cages from any of those 13 non-compliant states? We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce changes to the Government buying standards mandatory criteria, but why did it take so long to produce them? Why were they so late? Will he guarantee that the changes will be completed and enforced by 1 January 2012, and that all Departments, without fail, will not be using, in this context, conventionally caged eggs in any form—shell, liquid or powdered? It would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to fail to introduce these measures properly, and to fail their own standards, after asking much of the egg industry and many retailers—food manufacturers, food service companies and processors—to invest heavily in preparation for the ban.

Given that the UK’s enforcement strategy is to ensure that all those in the industry have stringent traceability tests in place to ensure that they are not using conventional cage eggs, what assistance is the Minister giving them—not policing, but giving the industry—to ensure that they are fully prepared? Are there additional costs that the industry will now have to take on to ensure compliance, and what assistance is the Minister giving if that is the case? Is he undertaking further action to assist our whole supply chain in the UK to prepare for this directive, or is that now it? They are ready, up and running, and it is a competitive market.

The Minister promised much, but the results have fallen short, as we have heard from the industry. In EU negotiations, there was a failure to level the playing field upwards in favour of higher animal welfare standards, and, I have to say, in favour of UK producers and jobs. However, he had a plan B, which was nothing to do with walking out on negotiations; it was actually to impose a UK unilateral ban. Despite the good promises and the fine words, I wonder whether he has been “Sir Humphried” by his officials on internal legal advice. We must now rely on voluntary enforcement—a sort of big society approach to welfare in UK food production. Perhaps I could suggest to him a reliance on the good and bad in business, highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition in recent contributions.

Finally, when all else has failed, will the Minister work with the industry, hon. Members here today and us to produce a definitive and up to date rolling register of all those who source shell, powder and liquefied eggs from enriched cages? Food processors, retailers, restaurants and others on the list would be demonstrably good eggs, and by implication everybody else would be bad eggs. We would support the Minister strongly in that, but anything else will be seen as a slap in the face for the UK egg industry.

I have already written to all those in the supply chain in the UK, asking in detail what they are doing to comply with the EU directive, both those on the list produced by the Minister and all other significant players. I guarantee our support if the Minister produces a live rolling register, because that seems to be the only tool left in the box at the moment. We have a lot of work to do, as I alluded to with the findings of the RSPCA, and we will do it. If the Minister does not, I am convinced that the industry will do it separately and alone, and we will work with them.

This is by no means a complete list of questions or of the concerns of many inside and outside the UK egg industry, but they are some of the key questions left to be answered by the Minister. I hope that he can provide the assurances that many are seeking—in the industry and in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has done such good work on this—so that we can drive up animal welfare standards and the protection of the very best in UK food production, as I know he is convinced we must do.