Common Agricultural Policy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Very briefly, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although I can confirm that I am not in receipt of any European funds at the moment.

Quite clearly this debate will have to be curtailed. The key principles set out in 2011 were high sounding and were certainly things that we would support—for instance, better targeted income support, greening measures, support for young farmers, measures to stimulate the rural economy and simpler, more efficient CAP funding. We certainly want to see those things, but it is the transition that worries me most. Because of how we did things in Wales under the last set of changes—we kept a stronger historical element than in England—we have a bigger change to make. I pay tribute to Alun Davies, the Welsh Government Minister, who has had a considerable conversation with farmers in Wales. The Welsh Government have stated that they would like a much longer transition period—ideally 10 years rather than five, but if that is not possible, at least seven—to ensure that farmers do not go out of business because of sudden, cliff-edge changes.

That is important, because when a farmer goes out of business, it is not just a catastrophe for that farmer and his or her family and a change in their way of life; it also has a detrimental effect on the rural economy, food production and our food security. Moreover, it is incredibly difficult to re-start. We all know from when we have talked about things such as foot and mouth how difficult it is to re-stock, but to re-start altogether—to go into farming, build up expertise again and build up generations of breeding to get the best animals possible—is extremely difficult these days and takes a long time, so we do not want a sudden, mass exodus. We want a cushioned transition to ensure that we do not have casualties.

The Farmers Union of Wales is absolutely right to say that the current Euroscepticism is extremely worrying. Just as we do not want to see farmers thrown out of business because of an ill-thought-out transition, we do not want them to have trouble when they go to the bank, under the shadow of our possible departure from the EU and a sudden drop in their income. We do not want farmers to have to fight for funds to invest in our food production. We do not want them suddenly finding themselves unable to encourage their sons and daughters into farming because no one can see a future in it or because they are so worried about the changes in income that might ensue if we pulled out of the EU. I therefore hope that Government Members will be able to influence some of their colleagues who are making these unhelpful noises and will ensure that Britain is at the heart of the negotiations in Europe so that we get a good deal for Britain, a smooth transition and the best possible help for our farmers in future.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and her team on the very thorough work they have done in this report. I also want to take the opportunity to express my concerns about the Government’s commitment to reversing bee decline, particularly in the light of the decision to vote against an EU-wide ban on neonicotinoid insecticides.

The need for action to reverse bee decline is highly urgent. All species of bee in the UK, including wild bumble and solitary species as well as managed honey bees, are suffering steep decline. In the last century, the UK has lost 20 species of bee and 47 surviving species are considered to be vulnerable or endangered. Such a rapid decline in bee populations, not just in the UK but across the world, poses a serious threat to global food production, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has just mentioned.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that about a third of all plants or plant products eaten by humans are dependent on bee pollination. The vital importance of bees to our environment and economy has long been known to the experts, but the critical role of our natural pollinators is only beginning to gain a wider appreciation.

Imaginative national campaigns, such as the Friends of the Earth campaign for a bee action plan, have had an impact in informing people about bee decline and gathering momentum for a comprehensive strategy from the Government. It is clear that the importance of the issue has also hit home in countries such as France and Italy. Italy is not always known for its interest in the environment, but it has led the way in banning certain types of pesticide before the moratorium was voted on by the EU.

For those of us who have been waiting for the Government to step up to the mark and action a comprehensive plan to reverse the ruinous decline in the UK’s bee population, the recent decision by Ministers to vote against the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides came as a blow. Thankfully for the bee population, the weight of support for the ban among other EU member states enabled the European Commission to proceed with a two-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, but the UK’s action confirmed the Government’s fundamental misunderstanding of their responsibility on the issue and betrayed a worrying lack of insight into where their priorities should lie.

DEFRA Ministers are hiding behind the need for what they call “clearer proof” of harm to bees caused by neonicotinoids. Indeed, they attempted to discredit the findings of the European Food Safety Agency, which concluded that the insecticides represented a “high acute risk” to honey bees and other pollinators, by pointing out that they were based on the results of lab tests rather than “field evidence”. There were those that hoped that by capitalising on the difficulty of obtaining field evidence they could get away with maintaining the status quo.

The UK field study cited by DEFRA Ministers as proof that neonicotinoids did not pose a risk to bees was pronounced hopelessly inadequate by EFSA. The bumblebee hives intended as controls in the experiment had been contaminated by neonicotinoids, and the study was found to be deficient in a large number of other ways. EFSA also expressed pointed concern about the manner in which the authors had

“elaborated and interpreted the study results to reach their conclusions”.

Needless to say, the study was brushed hastily under the carpet and Ministers were forced to stop touting it as sufficient proof that a ban was unnecessary, but the disregard for suggestive evidence that neonicotinoids cause harm and the massaging of scientific evidence to suit current policy causes real concern. Most troubling is that the Government have completely missed the point: in this situation, given the potential truly devastating effects of bee decline, it is the Government’s duty to act with appropriate caution—a duty they have utterly failed to recognise. In other words, DEFRA Ministers must apply the precautionary principle, as set out in the 1992 United Nations Rio declaration and the Lisbon treaty. It is not for the Government to entertain a value-based preference for false negatives—a desperate willingness to conclude that neonicotinoid pesticides are safe when they might not be. As the Environmental Audit Committee report states,

“economic factors should not blur environmental risk assessment and risk management, where the protection of people and the environment must be paramount.”

The sense of disappointment in the Government’s actions on bee-harming neonicotinoids is compounded by the fact that this is exactly the sort of issue—one that has far-reaching and potentially devastating environmental and economic implications—that we expect the UK to champion. We of all countries have always had a reputation for thorough scientific research, real concern for the environment and respect for the precautionary principle, and that the Government did not decide to take a proactive leading role in tackling bee decline related to pesticide use reflects very poorly on our nation’s attitude to environmental issues and severely damages the UK’s reputation for diligence and responsibility regarding the environment. The Government have not lived up to expectations. They should have had the foresight to lead; instead, they have allowed themselves to be beaten around by the big companies—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made clearly—and left us trailing behind.

Now the Government must seize the chance to make a fresh start. The two-year moratorium on the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides on crops attractive to honey bees will provide an opportunity for DEFRA Ministers to carry out careful and impartial monitoring of the effect on bee populations of the removal of pesticides. That will be a positive action that demonstrates the UK’s appreciation of the seriousness of bee decline and its commitment to working to reverse it. It will also demonstrate the UK’s support for the work of the European Commission, which also plans to use the two-year suspension period to review new scientific evidence on how pollinators are faring more generally.

The Government must also overhaul their national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides. It was necessary to take legal advice on whether the action plan complied with the minimum standards of the EU directive, which strongly suggests that the Government failed to see the directive as an opportunity to address the wider issue of pesticide use. In fact, UK use of insecticides on crops pollinated by bees remains on a steady upward trend. The Government must abandon their irresponsible, lacklustre approach and rewrite the action plan to incentivise farmers to use non-pesticide-based methods of pest control, making sure to include targets, measures and timetables for the reduction of pesticide use overall.

The Government must also recognise their duty to apply the precautionary principle. Given what is at stake, DEFRA must commit itself to erring on the side of caution in matters relating to bee decline and in future complex matters relating to the protection of people and the environment. The Select Committee observed:

“There is no compelling economic or agricultural case for neonicotinoid use in private gardens and on amenities such as golf courses”

and said that that might provide DEFRA Ministers with an immediate opportunity to prove their commitment to the precautionary principle.

It is time for the Government to turn themselves around and to move away from their disappointing behaviour on neonicotinoid insecticides by accepting the European moratorium with grace and applying themselves to tackling the harm caused to bees by pesticides. They also need to look more widely at their policy on bees and work to formulate and introduce a comprehensive bee action plan to save threatened habitats, promote bee-friendly farming and construction practices, and guide councils and the public on how they can protect our nation’s vital pollinators.

On pesticides and on all these measures, the UK Government must take the lead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that a UK-wide moratorium on the three neonicotinoid pesticides is fully in place by the deadline of 1 December? Will the Minister prove his commitment to countering the bee decline by setting quantitative targets for the reduction of all pesticide use and working hard to encourage the use of alternative pest management methods, as the EU directive requires? Will the Minister follow the example of the Labour Welsh Government’s draft action plan for pollinators, which sets out measures to help all bee species across all policy areas, including farming, conservation and planning? If so, when will he implement a UK-wide bee action plan? I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I will come back to the specific issue of neonicotinoids in a moment. The moratorium is in place, so we will, of course, fully comply with it. We do not not comply with decisions of that kind. I will return to the evidence, because it is a critical issue.

I repeat that bees are essential to the health of our natural environment and the prosperity of our farming industry. The “Biodiversity 2020” document has been mentioned. We have set ourselves the challenge of achieving an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and preventing further human induced extinctions of known threatened species. We have put a landscape scale approach to biodiversity conservation at the heart of “Biodiversity 2020”. It is vital that that approach is effective in helping to conserve our most threatened species.

Nature improvement areas are beginning to make a difference for species on the ground. The 12 Government-funded NIAs are by no means the sum total of our ambitions. We want to see that approach rolled out more widely by enthusiasts across the country. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is seeing exactly that in her city. We want that to be extended and it is clearly already happening.

We want to make environmental stewardship more effective. As the House knows, we are in the process of negotiating CAP reform. It is not clear what the outcomes will be. We do not know the extent to which greening measures will be in pillar 1 or pillar 2, or the exact recipe that will emerge from our decisions on agri-environmental schemes that derive from pillar 2 or voluntary modulation. This matter is a key consideration in that context and I will certainly be pressing for it in the outcome.

[Nia Griffith]

The European Scrutiny Committee has requested a debate on CAP reform. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be scheduled?

[Mr Heath]

I am responsible for a large number of things in my Department, but the scheduling of House business is not one of them. In my previous post, I might have been able to give the hon. Lady an answer, but in my current post I cannot. To be honest, now would not be the best time to have that debate because we are just reaching what we hope will be a conclusive meeting of the Council of Ministers. After that, we will have a much clearer idea of the outcomes and how they will be effected in the UK.

We recognise that there is still a need for targeted conservation action for our most threatened species. Natural England’s species recovery programme is designed to help with projects to support priority species, such as the short-haired bumblebee. Many Members have made the point that we are talking not just about the honey bee, but about many other native bee species and other non-bee pollinators. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators. He has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach could bring.

We will continue with our wider work to understand and counter the various factors that harm bees and other pollinators. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser and Ministers have met a number of interested parties to discuss that work, including non-governmental organisations. We will seek to host discussions with other stakeholders over the summer.

As I have said, there are many things that we do not yet understand about the reductions in pollinator populations. There are many major factors, including the varroa mite, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), foulbrood and the undoubted effects of climate change and environmental and ecological changes in this country. That is why some experts are very unclear as to the quantifiable effect of pesticides. The British Beekeepers Association keeps an open mind on that, as do we. We want to know what the connections are and to see the evidence.

Let us return to the issue of pesticides. As we heard in the debate, the European Commission recently adopted a ban on the use of three neonicotinoids on crops that are “attractive to bees” and on some cereal crops. The ban also covers amateur use, so the Government do not need to bring in an extension.

It is documented that we did not support action, the reason being that we had urged the Commission to complete a full assessment of the available scientific evidence, taking into account new field research that we had carried out. Let us talk about that because it is a serious issue. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North asked whether we reject laboratory evidence, but of course we do not; it is extraordinarily important. However, we would like some coherence between what we see in the laboratory and what we see in field trials. That does not make field trials the only thing that matter, but such a correlation is not presently there.

From laboratory tests we are clear that neonicotinoids have a toxicity for bees. We do not know, however, what the exposure is in a natural environment, and the two things go together. Many things are toxic but do not create a deleterious effect in the field simply because the exposure is too low. That is where we must do a lot more work, and that is exactly where we are commissioning it. We were clear that the work done by FERA was by no means a satisfactory field trial. We never pretended that it was; it had to be done quickly to meet a timetable—set not by us, but by others—to give at least some indication of whether that correlation was there. Incidentally, I will not accept criticism of FERA scientists on that basis. They are extremely good and do their work in a totally dispassionate and independent way on the best scientific principles. They were asked to do a quick piece of work—which they did—and that is why it was not peer reviewed, as would be normal practice. We felt it was important to put the matter in the hands of the Commission, which was about to make a decision on a highly contentious subject.

I make no apologies for recognising that there is, of course, a strong imperative to look at evidence that suggests a toxic consequence and, where possible, to take a precautionary approach to these matters. However, a precautionary approach is not as two-dimensional as sometimes suggested and must take into account the consequences of the action in question. The hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned the economic consequences, and of course that is a factor, although not an overriding one.

Of far more concern is a point also raised by hon. Members about alternative pesticides that are fully legal under EU law and that it would be perfectly proper for people to use, such as pyrethroids, organophosphates or carbamates, because the potential is that they would be even more damaging to the pollinator population. That concern does not mean that we should not take action against neonicotinoids if the evidence is clear that they are causing problems in field conditions, but it was not unreasonable to say that the paucity of field-trial evidence was astonishing.

I do not have portfolio responsibility for this matter, but when I looked at it with a view sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North was saying, I was amazed at how little evidence there was in field conditions, which I think exposes a failure of the scientific world to address the problem. I hope that we can play our part in persuading others across the European Union to take a more rational view of where we concentrate our research so that we get the evidence we need, and that is what we are trying to do. Although our assessment is that the risk to the bee population from neonicotinoids, as currently used, is low, we may be wrong and evidence may come forward from trials that shows otherwise. If such evidence is there, we shall, of course, accept it, but we need more complete evidence than we currently have.

The European Commission has committed itself to a review of evidence by 2015, which we want to be founded firmly on a strengthened scientific evidence base. We will play our part in that and are currently talking about the design of field trials that might be in place during the moratorium period, so that we can gather evidence, not just on the honey bee, but on other bee species as well. The FERA research was on the bumblebee rather than the honey bee. It is important that we understand how other species are affected.

Badger Cull

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about a serious problem that I know causes great consternation in the farming community. We know how serious it is to be faced with having to slaughter cattle, so Labour Members are determined to continue to make progress toward eradicating bovine TB. We commissioned the randomised badger culling trial, the largest scientific project on the effects of culling, which reported in 2007. That trial, which provided the most extensive scientific evidence on the impacts of culling badgers and which lasted 10 years and cost £50 million, examined the effects of culling at 10 high-risk sites across England. The report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB stated:

“After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.”

Lord Krebs, the foremost expert on bovine TB in badgers has called for a twin-track approach of developing an effective vaccine in the long term and improving biosecurity and cattle management to prevent herds from coming into contact with badgers and passing on the disease. He was one of 30 scientists who stated in a letter to the press:

“As scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, we believe the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it.”

They added:

“We are concerned that badger culling risks becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control.”

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Government use evidence from other countries’ culling other animals, such as possums and deer. Does my hon. Friend agree they are wrong to say that the situation would be exactly the same here, when those animals do not leave the area of perturbation in the same way as badgers do?

[Nia Griffith]

It is indeed difficult to make comparisons with other countries, where ecological patterns are very different. Perturbation has been mentioned by other speakers, so I will not go into great detail on that; instead, I want to talk about cattle vaccination, because that is what will put the farmer in control, and we should put a lot of effort into it. I am therefore saddened that whereas we spent £3.5 million on this in 2009-10, this Government have cut the funding for that sort of research to £2 million for the next financial year—

[Mr Paterson]

That is because there is no money, because you messed up the economy. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need enticement from the Front Bench. The Secretary of State does not need to get angry, as he will be coming back later, no doubt. Mr Wiggin, we do not need any extra help from you.

[Nia Griffith]

The European Commission has set out an indicative 10-year timetable for the cattle BCG vaccine and DIVA test to be available for use, but as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said, the timetable is precisely that: indicative. I ask the Government to put every effort into further research into the steps necessary to make the vaccine and the test both effective and usable in the international context. That is the way to make sure the farmer is in control, which is the real way to deal with the problem.

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

I know the hon. Lady is completely genuine in her views, but does she not agree that the vaccine will be effective only in 60% of a cattle herd, with 40% remaining susceptible to TB if infected badgers are present in their grazing area?

[Nia Griffith]

That highlights the need for further scientific research and development. Clearly there is still work to do if we are to produce a more effective vaccine.

The Welsh Government have taken a different approach from England: rather than cull badgers, Welsh Ministers have started a vaccination programme, which has successfully trapped and vaccinated 1,400 badgers in its first year of operation. In March 2012, the then Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, John Griffiths, announced a new strategic framework for bovine TB eradication covering the next four years. The programme builds on existing cattle surveillance and control measures, biosecurity best practice—all those are of great importance—and input received from stakeholder engagement; it also includes vaccination of badgers within the intensive action area.

The vaccination project was undertaken in the TB intensive action area in west Wales, which is primarily in north Pembrokeshire and covers approximately 288 sq km. It is the first time that a project to trap, cage and vaccinate badgers on such a large scale has been carried out. Field operations began in March 2012, and last season the programme trapped and vaccinated 1,424 badgers. A further round of field work started this year, in May. A welfare assessment of every badger is undertaken at the time of capture: none was found to be seriously injured and no badger showed any sign of adverse reaction to the vaccination. Participation in the project is voluntary and the Welsh Government are grateful for the co-operation and assistance received from farmers and landowners, with a total of 472 landowners having allowed access to their land.

The Welsh Government have met the three regional TB eradication delivery boards and representatives of animal welfare and conservation organisations to take their views on expanding the use of badger vaccination to cover the rest of Wales. Government-led and cost-sharing options are being explored, including the possibility of a grant to attract new partners and funding. The Welsh Government have also focused on incorporating new technological developments as they become available. In December 2012, the chief veterinary officer, Christianne Glossop, organised a pioneering two-day cattle vaccination workshop to consider the contribution that might make. It was attended by some of the world’s leading experts in vaccination and disease eradication programmes and among the key observations that emerged was that there is a need to gain field experience with cattle BCG vaccine here in the UK.

On that note, I repeat to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Farming that the real way forward is vaccination for cattle. We need to get the best scientific evidence and the best collaboration with our partners in Europe to make that an effective approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I certainly do agree. The clear intention of CAP money is to support those areas where the market does not provide, as I know my hon. Friend would agree. But we need a thriving agricultural industry in this country, and that means that we ensure that for the future we have the food security that this country desperately needs.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Calcium, iron and other nutrients have been added to white flour in this country for over 65 years, and it is very worrying to hear that the Government are considering possibly scrapping that. Does the Secretary of State see that as an important addition to nutrition for families, particularly in hard-pressed times, or simply a regulatory burden that he wants to get rid of?

[Mr Heath]

We are considering a review of the national rules relating to bread and flour as they apply to England. We held a public consultation seeking views on possible deregulatory options, which closed on 13 March 2013. We are analysing the 47 responses that we received, in conjunction with the Department of Health. We are committed to ensuring that any policy decision on the removal of mandatory fortification will take into account an assessment of the health impacts, the impact on industry and the implications for other parts of the United Kingdom and the interests of consumers. We intend to announce our decision before the summer recess.

Agricultural Wages Board

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for securing a debate on this issue. I acknowledge the strong feelings that she has expressed, but I am firmly convinced that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is in the best interests of all those working in the industry. It will provide simplification and greater flexibility, thereby encouraging investment, growth and job opportunities in the sector.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain exactly how the board’s abolition will create job opportunities? Will it happen by driving down wages?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that early intervention. If she gives me a chance, I will explain my case. I take a completely contrasting view to hers. I have a positive view of agriculture and I see an expanding demand for labour in the countryside. I believe that the current minimum wage arrangements will give protection to those at the lower end of the scale, but I am absolutely convinced—because it is happening already—that the overwhelming number of employees in the sector will be paid well above the minimum wage. Let me make my case; I might be able to convince her.

A successful agricultural industry will contribute to the growth of the wider rural economy, which is one of the four key objectives of my Department. Agriculture is vital for the UK. It produces much of the food that we eat and supports other industries that add nearly £90 billion to our economy. The food supply chain employs nearly 4 million people and includes the largest manufacturing sector in the UK. Exports of agricultural food and drink have seen seven years of continuous export growth and were worth £18 billion in 2011.

There are huge opportunities for further growth within agriculture to meet the demands of feeding the world’s population as it grows from 6 billion to 9 billion. We want to ensure that the UK industry is in the forefront of meeting those demands, and we are already doing a great deal to help to ensure the success of the industry. An example is the joint Department for Business, Innovation and Skills-Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agri-tech strategy, which will provide a framework for research and the development of technologies. It will support growth through encouraging the global uptake of world-class UK-based agri-science and associated technologies, stimulating their translation into high-tech agricultural systems in the UK. We are working on the design of the new rural development programme, which we will use to develop professional skills, including business management and risk awareness, across the agriculture and forestry sectors.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am glad to have the chance to speak in this debate. I have been getting increasingly frustrated, as is often the case, by what seems to be a cack-handed effort on the part of the Opposition to ingratiate themselves with the rural community. In so doing, they have managed to be pretty offensive to every aspect of the rural community.

I can only share some anecdotal thoughts in this debate. Prior to entering Parliament, I spent 28 years working in various parts of that community. I have worked on a farm, I have worked for farms, I have worked for big estates and small estates, I have represented landlords, tenants and farm workers, and I have worked in forestry and country sports. There is almost no aspect of the rural economy and the rural community that I have not come into contact with over quite a long period.

Throughout that whole period, not one single person ever said to me, “Of course, what we really need to do is preserve the Agricultural Wages Board.” In the run-up to the last election, I asked a group of farmers and farm workers in my constituency if there was a single thing that the Government could do: if there was one thing only on the Christmas list, what would it be? Without hesitation, the answer was, “Get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board. It has outlived its usefulness.”

[Nia Griffith]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what members of the Farmers Union of Wales told him in response to that question?

[Simon Hart]

I can. The FUW members supported the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. The FUW as a union made rather a different representation. I speak on behalf of members in my own constituency. Of course I cannot speak for the union based in a different area.

One of the things that I find startling is that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), rather than the whole party that she represents, seemed to find it impossible to believe that an owner, a manager, a farm worker and a forester can all work harmoniously together because they have a common shared love of food production or a common shared love of their community and want to do the right thing by their farmer. That seems to be a concept that the Opposition cannot absorb because they have a union-fuelled view that it is some kind of Dickensian existence out there. For those of us for whom it is our daily life—it is where I shall be by the end of tomorrow—it is not like that. It may be like that in Wakefield, but it ain’t like that in Pembrokeshire.

I am particularly sad that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), is not in his place. He seems to be dancing to the union tune on the subject. I know Ogmore in the way that he knows Pembrokeshire, and we both know, as I said, that this is not an issue for agricultural workers in either of our constituencies. I am surprised that he has not stood up to the pressure from the sponsors of the debate and spoken on behalf of the agricultural workers, with whom we are all familiar and for whom we have great respect in west Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Ministers have still not convinced me about why they want to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. If they are so convinced that agricultural wages will not go down, why are they so determined to abolish it? Why should it matter to them if it continues to exist and people continue to be paid at the rates it sets?

DEFRA’s own assessment has calculated that abolishing the AWB will take £260 million out of the rural economy over the next 10 years. That can mean only one thing: the 80% of agricultural workers who are on grades 2 to 6 will be vulnerable to having their pay driven down to minimum wage levels, regardless of the skills involved, not to mention the antisocial hours and the need to be out in all weather, using complex machinery, but still getting wet and dirty. Of course, that means less money in the rural economy, with a knock-on effect for the village shop and others employed locally.

We talk about fair trade for developing countries and getting a fair price for their products so that their farming communities can get reasonable rewards for their efforts. After much campaigning by Opposition Members, and indeed the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Government have agreed to give the groceries code adjudicator some teeth, which is an important step towards tackling exploitation and giving farmers a fair price for their produce. However, it is equally important to ensure that the workers who harvest that produce are fairly remunerated, and the AWB has a vital role in protecting agricultural workers.

In other words, it is not enough that the groceries code adjudicator ensures that the supermarket does not exploit the farmer; the AWB’s conditions also ensure that the farmer does not exploit the worker. That is particularly important because, as a response to the Macdonald report, the Government are now threatening to reduce the impact of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, whereas we would like to see its remit extended to cover sectors such as care homes and construction.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, the Farmers Union of Wales is firmly opposed to the abolition of the AWB. I find it quite insulting that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) seems to have completely ignored what the FUW has on its website and what it has repeatedly said when it has come to see us.

[Simon Hart]

What I actually said was that the members of that union in my constituency who have approached me take a different view.

[Nia Griffith]

Well, farmers in general want to be fair to their staff, and I would certainly say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that the good guys do not need the legislation, but legislation is necessary for those who do try to exploit people and who do not necessarily play by the rules. As I have said, most farmers want to be fair.

Many farmers in areas such as rural Wales are both employer and employee, because they often work on contract for other farmers. They might sometimes employ agricultural workers, but they or members of their family might also be employed as agricultural workers. They have said themselves that it is not about being unable to set pay rates, but that it is far simpler and fairer in a rural community to say that everyone will go by the same rate. That is the importance of the AWB, and that is exactly what the FUW has been telling us.

Of course, it is not just about a minimum wage, because there are all the other things that the AWB sets, such as allowances for night work and being on stand-by, bereavement, sick leave, holiday entitlement and the rates for under-16s, none of which are covered by the national minimum wage legislation. In a rural community there are few alternative job opportunities and it is difficult for agricultural workers to find alternative employment. The cost of living is often higher because of the higher costs of transport and fewer opportunities to shop around for cheaper deals.

Those who rely on their employer for accommodation are even more vulnerable. There is often no alternative accommodation in rural areas, and the AWB plays a vital role in setting maximum charges for accommodation and minimum standards of sanitation, and in making sure that each worker has their own bed to sleep in.

What will happen when casual workers start their next job and find that the going rate is less? For many of them that will mean that their households incomes fall, so more families will become more reliant on higher levels of tax credit, which will not be good for the public purse. It would be far better to make sure that they had the proper rate of pay for their work and a proper wage from their employer, so that they could be less reliant on handouts.

This is part of a seemingly much wider attack by the Government. I regret that the legislation to abolish the AWB is being passed in such an unpleasant way and by the back door, when the Welsh Government made a very strong case to keep it in Wales when it was part of the Public Bodies Bill, not the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. This has done a terrible disservice to our rural communities.

Upland Sheep Farmers

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Glyn Davies]

I do agree. I contemplated the possibility of expanding the debate to include other businesses—and, while tourism is the obvious example, other businesses will have been affected—but decided that that would weaken the thrust of the point I wanted to make. I do not seek in any way to belittle the issue, but I wanted to concentrate on something else today.

Most of the livestock that we are discussing would eventually have been sent to an abattoir. Strangely, that is accepted among farmers as being the natural order of things, but what happened in this instance was not the natural order, and it has been hugely stressful.

During the most recent foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, I was Chair of the National Assembly’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee. For several months, I spent most days—and it often continued late into the night, until the early hours of the morning—talking to people in distress who were unable to cope with the fact that all their animals, many of them prized animals, were being put down and burnt as a consequence of contact with the disease. Interestingly—I say that it was interesting now, but it was tragic then—it was not the farmers who were ringing me, but their wives and parents, who were deeply worried about the men. It is mostly men who work in that industry. Livestock farming is a lonesome life, and those wives and parents were hugely worried about the mental state of the farmers and about what they might do. Indeed, the tragedy is that some of them did the very worst.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Welsh Minister, Alun Davies, has asked the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution to tackle the problem? The institution can speak to farmers and their families individually, and offer them the support to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

[Glyn Davies]

I was not going to make that point myself, and I thank the hon. Lady for making it. I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have given half a million pounds to charities that are in a position to identify and support those who are suffering from stress. They can do that better than a Government could ever do it. Although I was disappointed by the approach taken in the first three or four days, I think that the Minister’s response since then has been entirely positive, and I congratulate him on it.

The fact that animals have died under the snow is not the only issue, although that has received a lot of attention. There are also the issues of the other animals that have died, the loss of the grass that has been killed off by the snow and the consequent widespread shortage of feed.

Many people who do not understand hill farming do not understand that hill ewes will not readily take to artificial feed, as lowland breeds do. There will be heavy losses from snow fever and twin lamb disease, and as a result of animals that simply will not eat feed when their natural grass has gone. Huge numbers of animals will be dying from mineral deficiencies. The inevitable shortage of milk will result in lambs succumbing to illness and dying, too. They will be crushed into confined spaces, where there is much greater incidence of disease. Lambs will die in large numbers of joint ill and infectious scour, which can go straight through a flock. I remember when I had my whole flock in as a result of adverse weather conditions, but I had to turn them out into the snow, because disease arises when the animals are crammed into small spaces. Hill farmers are not used to that. They are geared up to lambing in April and lambing out. All of this adds to the direct losses from snow.

The Governments in Cardiff Bay and Westminster have responded with statements, both of which are positive and hugely welcome. I want to inject that positive note into this debate.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that retailers and food processors have prime responsibility for the content of their products. Nevertheless, the public feel that the Government have a responsibility to ensure enforcement of accurate labelling. His Government did away with responsibility for labelling of food content back in 2010. Can he now explain how it is shared between the FSA, his Department and the Department of Health, whether he thinks that is satisfactory and what improvements he thinks need to be made?

[Mr Paterson]

Labour Members have got a nerve! For 13 years, year after year, Conservative Members brought forward labelling Bills and were not backed by Labour Whips. We are the ones who are getting labelling sharpened up; Labour did nothing at all.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, although I am aware that other Members wish to speak.

[Nia Griffith]

Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider bringing in the power to raise fines?

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I am not going to give an exhaustive list. If the groceries code adjudicator felt that the remedies were not sufficient and were not being adhered to and if there were repeated breaches or if the recommendations made by the adjudicator were not being followed up on, those things would weigh heavily in the balance.

There has been a lot of lobbying on this issue, not least from hon. Members. As I am discovering, ministerial life brings with it a variety of interesting experiences, one of which happened last month, when I accepted a petition from a giant dog.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I am delighted that, at long last, we have reached the Second Reading of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. Its gestation period seems to have been longer than that of an elephant. Before I proceed any further, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who brought forward a private Member’s Bill with a rather long title—the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill—back in 2010. He has since worked hard to lobby for a grocery adjudicator—or, as he much prefers to call it, a supermarket ombudsman. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who chaired the Grocery Market Action Group and was active in pushing forward the agenda from the early days of the Competition Commission inquiry in 2006.

I have already put on record my support for a grocery supermarket adjudicator, so I shall confine my comments to the areas where I feel that the Bill could be improved. It is, above all, about fairness—about ensuring that the groceries supply code of practice is properly adhered to. That code came into force in February 2010, but without an adjudicator it is very difficult for any individual supplier to challenge a retailer who breaches the code. A complaint has to be brought under the dispute resolution procedure or go to court.

Having an adjudicator is about ensuring fair play, having a referee and ensuring that everyone plays by the rules. It is important to stress that the Bill is not an anti-supermarket measure. Any retailer who respects the groceries supply code of practice has nothing to fear from the establishment of the adjudicator’s office. It is about creating a level playing field and tackling any attempts to breach the code which, if left unchecked, can damage suppliers, rival retailers and ultimately customers.

We should not underestimate the intimidation and difficulties that suppliers face if they are being badly treated by retailers. It is frightening to hear from the Farmers Union of Wales and the NFU about some of the sharp practices to which suppliers are subjected—varying supply agreements and decreasing the price paid for milk retrospectively. There is no doubt that this type of treatment can have a devastating effect on farms, particularly small family farms, and the driving down of prices by these retailers is certainly threatening to put some farmers out of business. We have already lost many farms from the dairy industry, and this type of driving down of prices, particularly when there is little flexibility from the banks, is threatening to put even more farmers out of business.

I very much welcome the fact that the Bill will now allow the adjudicator to accept complaints and evidence from third parties such as trade associations and trade unions. It can be extremely intimidating for any one supplier to bring a complaint, and trade associations and trade unions can offer help and support, and they are often in a position to see patterns of behaviour emerging—if, for example, there is a systematic breaking of the code.

The very fact that such organisations can bring issues to the attention of the adjudicator will in itself act as an incentive for retailers to abide by the code, but it worries me that clause 15(10) gives power to the Secretary of State completely to rescind that power. If we are serious about giving the opportunity to third parties such as trade unions and trade associations to bring issues to the adjudicator’s attention, why on earth do we have such a provision that would allow the list of the adjudicator’s powers to be deleted completely? As I say, that worries me considerably.

The question of the safeguarding of anonymity is extremely tricky. Several Members have given instances in which it would be easy to identify suppliers when their number is very small. That is one reason why the adjudicator’s power to undertake proactive investigations is so important. It might be possible for an adjudicator with both the power to work with trade associations and unions and the power to undertake proactive investigations to keep an ear to the ground, look out for examples of sharp practice, and take up complaints in a broader context. That could help to protect anonymity.

Like other Members, I am disappointed that the adjudicator will not have the power from day one to impose fines on those who breach the code. The Government propose that the adjudicator must make the case for such a power to the Secretary of State. That process would be very convoluted, and would involve further delay—the Minister herself spoke of a delay of at least six months—but, more important, it would convey the message that the adjudicator was powerless. It would make far more sense to give the adjudicator the power to levy fines from the outset, enabling him to exercise discretion and impose fines if that seemed appropriate.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

If the adjudicator were given the power at the outset, would not companies be more likely to self-regulate, because they would know that action could be taken at a later stage?

[Nia Griffith]

As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out, the stronger the adjudicator is from the outset, the more likely everyone will be to fall into line. If it is made clear that the adjudicator has powers that can be used immediately, there will be no need for us to faff around for six months trying to introduce some other piece of legislation that puts the power in the right place for the adjudicator.

It is crucial for the power to be there from the start. That would give everyone far more confidence in the role of the adjudicator, and would undoubtedly make the adjudicator much more effective. It would enhance the status of the adjudicator in the minds of the public, the supermarkets and the suppliers. We have already heard many Members and many organisations issue a plea for the adjudicator to have the power to fine from the outset, and I hope that the Government will listen to it.

Many Members have mentioned intimidation and suppliers’ fear of victimisation. The adjudicator should also have the power to fine retailers who discriminate against suppliers on the basis that, rightly or wrongly, they are suspected of providing evidence for the purpose of investigation. In other words, there should be some protection for the whistleblower. Otherwise, it will still be incredibly difficult for people to come forward and expose some of what is going on.

I warmly welcome the Bill and hope that it will make excellent progress in Committee, but I think that if we do not grab the opportunity to give the adjudicator the teeth that the office deserves, it will be a wasted opportunity.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his supportive comments. Emphatically yes—it is absolutely right that we go ahead next summer, but we must do it within the constraints of the scientific criteria that are laid down. That is what we intend to do.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I was not entirely clear about the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). We are certainly pleased to hear about the progress made on the vaccination and the DIVA test, but can he explain exactly what recent talks he has had with European colleagues? When does he think there might be some real progress, and what is he doing to ensure that it is as fast as possible?

[Mr Paterson]

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

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady needs to understand the contributory factors. The depreciation of sterling makes imports of food in other currencies stronger than ours more expensive. It is important to read the figures in the context of exchange rates and the other factors that drive up inflation.

The Government are, of course, actively finding ways to help mitigate the rises. But the Government cannot do it all, and they should not pretend that they can. Since the removal of production linked support in 2005, crops and livestock are traded on a global market. It is those markets that dictate food prices. As has been pointed out, the key drivers of domestic retail food price inflation include world agricultural commodity prices.

I hate to have to tell the hon. Member for Wakefield, but if she is to have this brief she needs to learn that the wheat price has not been stable; it has fluctuated in recent years from £60 a tonne to more than £200 a tonne. There are also oil prices and exchange rates. In 2008, although the price of wheat fell in dollar terms, it increased in sterling terms because of the relative weakness of sterling to the dollar. To understand the causes of food price inflation, one has to analyse correctly the underlying drivers.

World commodity prices are the key driver and we are working hard internationally to ensure the better functioning of commodity prices at the global level. That, in turn, will affect food prices at home. The depreciation of sterling has made dollar-denominated commodities more expensive. Furthermore, global weather extremes have caused shortages that drive prices up.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition fully understand which things Governments can intervene on and which they cannot. What is she doing to help the poorest families in the country to make sure that they get enough food and do not have to rely on food banks? How many food banks would she regard as a measure of success, and what is she aiming to do by the end of her stay in office?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady clearly was not listening to what I said about the continuation of the Healthy Start campaign, for example. Of course, in any big society, there is no finite amount of contribution that each of us might make to the more vulnerable; there is no need to put a limit on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) through his private Member’s Bill, the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill, which, as many Members will know, had a long history spanning several years. He said—this is the most important thing to remember about the Bill—that it was about fairness to all those involved, whether they were farmers, small producers, local suppliers, suppliers from developing countries, small shops, convenience stores, supermarkets or, most importantly, consumers.

The Bill led to the proposal for a supermarket ombudsman or groceries adjudicator being in all three parties’ manifestos for the 2010 election, but what has happened since then? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) secured an Adjournment debate on the groceries code adjudicator last April, and in May we had the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills document, “The Government’s policy for a Groceries Code Adjudicator”, but it is now January 2012 and we do not seem to be any further on.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State why we are waiting so long for the Bill and when we are going to see it. Is it going to contain the proper sanctions that we all want to see—sanctions that will actually make a difference and make people change their behaviour? Will the adjudicator be able to carry out proactive investigations? One thing is certain: if, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) has explained, we need to increase food production, farmers are not going to be able to do that if they are being squeezed on prices. Many Members have cited the dairy industry as an obvious example. If the price of milk is squeezed, people inevitably go out of business and we produce less, which means we end up importing even such things as milk, which one would think we could produce very easily in our climate.

[Philip Davies]

Here we are being offered again this painless panacea in which everyone benefits from an ombudsman. Will the hon. Lady explain how getting the supermarket to pay more to the supplier and the farmer, fining it more and getting it to pay for the ombudsman will result in reduced costs for the customer? I am absolutely fascinated to hear how that will work.

[Nia Griffith]

This is about fairness. It is about paying a fair price to farmers for what they produce, having a fair price for consumers, and stopping sharp practices. It is about protecting the good businesses—the good guys if you like—and creating a level playing field, which is extremely important.

Let me address what happens to people when they go into supermarkets, particularly when they buy fruit and vegetables. We should not forget that there has been a dramatic drop of 30% in fruit and vegetable purchasing by the poorest families, so that the poorest children now get only 2.7 of the five portions of fruit and veg they should have each day. Is it small wonder that when people go into supermarkets they are quite worried about what will end up on their bill at the till, given that they are absolutely dazed by the displays of fruit and veg and the ways of pricing them? Sometimes they are priced by the item, sometimes by the packet—in fours, eights or tens—and sometimes by weight. For example, there are many varieties of tomato, from cherry tomatoes to beef tomatoes, and there is a range of different pricing mechanisms, which is extremely confusing. There should be a very simple formula that allows us all to compare prices easily, because it is very difficult with loose items such as fruit and veg, which can be packed in so many different ways, to work out exactly what one is being charged. Last September there was a bumper crop because of that fabulous spring we had last April, but did we see prices drop? No. Could we have told if they had dropped? No, because unlike at the petrol pump where we can all see the sign displayed very clearly and can tell when prices go up, one cannot see when prices for fruit and veg go up—it is easy to disguise and to pull a fast one on the consumer. Those issues need to be addressed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has explained, the number of people needing help from food banks is increasing and it is set to increase further. Why? Because some of this Government’s taxation policies are hitting the poorest hardest and squeezing their income. For example, some of the changes being introduced mean that those on low wages who are trying to do the right thing and go out to work are going to find that their tax credits will be cut. They would like to top up with more work hours, but those hours simply are not available. Sometimes that is because supermarkets prefer to have people on low hours; it gives them more flexibility for the Saturday and Sunday shifts that they want worked.

What about the cuts to housing benefit? They are going to leave many families who currently receive the amount they need to pay their rent having to use what should be food money to pay the rent. That is why we will see dramatic drops in the amount that people have to pay for their food. There will also be more and more families relying on food banks. What about the cuts in winter fuel allowance? They will leave some of our pensioners with less money to spend on food.

[Simon Hart]

Does the hon. Lady accept that obesity is increasing, particularly among young people and people from poor backgrounds? Despite the efforts of the previous Government and this Government, that does not show much sign of changing. Does she accept that, in reality, the issue is about a lot more than just the current Government’s tax system? It is much wider and much more complex than she portrays it.

[Nia Griffith]

Obesity may very well be on the increase because unhealthier foods are the only type that some families can afford; they cannot afford the healthier alternatives. That is a real issue. People look at the different pricing mechanisms and go for what can fill them up. That is the type of food that they rely on now. They do not have the luxury of choice.

Let me move on from pricing in supermarkets and our adjudicators Bill to my worry about families who cannot afford something very basic: enough food to eat. That is very serious. It is nothing to be proud of that we need food banks; that is something that we do not want to see. We do not want anybody to have to rely on charity for something that every family should be able to afford. We want proper policies that will put money in the pockets of the people who need to spend it on food. No one in this country—one of the richest countries in the world—should have to look to charity for food. We need to make absolutely certain that the policies put in place deliver fair prices for consumers and farmers, and that the distribution of income levels is fair, so that those who have the least can make the purchases that they need to make to feed their family. It is an absolute disgrace to rely on food banks to do something that everyone should be able to afford to do: feed their family.