Horsemeat Fraud (Update)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on developments since my written ministerial statement on 14 February 2013, Official Report, column 60WS.

Consumers have been the Government’s priority throughout this incident. No misrepresentation of horse meat as beef is acceptable. Food industry tests of the most vulnerable processed beef products have now been reported to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) covering approximately 90% of retailers’ products, and 80% of those from manufacturers, caterers and wholesalers. It is of some reassurance to consumers that over 99% of 3,599 tests contained no horse DNA at or above the level of 1 %.

On Friday 15 February, the FSA published the first set of results from the programme of product testing being carried out by food businesses across the supply chain. Out of 2,501 tests, 99% were completely clear of horse DNA. The 29 samples that were positive for horse DNA involved products which the FSA had already been informed about and which had already been taken off the shelves and the recall publicised.

I followed the publication of this first tranche of results with a meeting on 18 February with businesses and organisations from throughout the UK food industry. Ministers from the devolved Administrations were also present. This was a constructive meeting, at which everyone committed to work together to rebuild the certainty and trust that consumers deserve, both for the products that they buy and the food that they are served. At that meeting food businesses throughout the supply chain agreed to do their best to report back as many testing results as possible to the FSA by Friday 22 February.

On Friday 22 February, the FSA published the second set of test results from the programme of product testing being carried out by food businesses. A further 1,133 new results were reported, of which six products tested positive for the presence of horse DNA. The message to consumers remains that the overwhelming majority of products tested, 3,599 out of 3,631 (over 99%) were completely clear of horse DNA. A further update of industry testing results will be published by the FSA this Friday.

There have been no positive tests to date for the presence of bute in any of the UK food samples found to contain horse. Food adulterated with horsemeat remains a fraud issue and one of consumer confidence, not one of food safety.

On Friday 22 February the British Retail Consortium issued a press release stating that they had completed over 90% of their tests on processed meat products. Caterers and wholesalers also indicated that they had now completed around 80% of their tests.

The FSA will publish the results of the remaining tests on Friday 1 March. After that, food businesses will update the FSA on their test results every three months. I have also agreed with food businesses that we should meet regularly to discuss ways to strengthen the food industry.

Public sector food is very much within scope of the current testing regime. The major suppliers and caterers to public institutions are part of the extensive food industry testing which is being reported and published through the FSA. In addition the food served in schools, hospitals and prisons is included in the FSA commissioned UK-wide authenticity survey of processed beef products and ready meals being carried out by local authorities. As with all parts of the industry any positive test results will lead to the immediate withdrawal of products, notification to the FSA and information being provided immediately to consumers.

The FSA has made it clear that all public bodies where food is served are expected to have rigorous procurement procedures in place, and use reputable suppliers. The FSA has reminded public bodies of their responsibility for their own food contracts. Since the FSA issued advice to public institutions on Sunday 11 February lead Government Departments have been in contact with their public bodies to highlight the advice. All public bodies are aware of the extensive testing regime the FSA has established with the food industry and the UK-wide survey which have been put in place to reinforce the integrity and confidence in processed beef supplies in Britain.

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 15 February agreement was reached on a Europe-wide programme of testing of beef products for presence of horse DNA and testing of horsemeat intended for the food chain for “bute”. This is an important step in establishing where the problem of food fraud is occurring across Europe and seeking the commitment from all member states to not only put an end to it but to prevent it happening again. The apparent French source of the recalled Findus product and the announcements last week by Nestle and Birdseye of product withdrawals in Italy, Spain and Belgium demonstrate that this is a Europe-wide issue.

Results from the first phase of the UK-wide authenticity survey being carried out by local authorities of minced beef products for the presence of horse and pig DNA will be available in the week beginning 4 March. In the meantime the survey has been extended. A second phase will survey a wider range of beef products including ready meals. Sampling for this phase has been completed and testing is starting this week. A third phase to include sampling under the EU co-ordinated control plan is also now under way. The FSA will report the UK’s contribution to the Europe-wide programme to the EU by mid-April.

While the issues surrounding falsified horse passports are unrelated to the fact that horsemeat has been fraudulently passed off as beef in a number of products I would like to update the House on this issue. I met representatives from across the equine sector on 21 February to look at ways in which we can work together to tighten and improve the current horse passport system. DEFRA officials will continue to work with interested parties but in the meantime the FSA has already taken robust action to ensure that no horse carcass from the UK can now enter the human food chain unless it has tested negative for bute.

Consumers need to be confident in the food that they buy. I welcome the significant effort put into testing products by businesses across the food industry to tackle horsemeat fraud. This unprecedented level of testing, combined with the FSA led local authority and EU programmes over the coming weeks, will give us a clear picture of the extent of the problem. Investigations into specific incidents are ongoing in the UK and across Europe and where appropriate the police and other enforcement authorities are involved.

This has been a Europe-wide scandal. I will be discussing the mislabelling of beef products with other Ministers at the EU Agriculture Council meeting today, and will report further to the House after the meeting.

Commons Act 2006 (Post-legislative Assessment)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

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

The post-legislative assessment of the Commons Act 2006, Cm 8551, comprising the Government’s memorandum to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee will be laid before Parliament today.

The main purpose of the Act is to provide a legislative framework for the better protection, management and understanding of commons and greens. It provides powers to commons registration authorities and other bodies involved in the management and protection of such land.

Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Horsemeat Fraud (EU Meeting)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

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

On 13 February I met Agriculture Ministers from a number of other member states together with the Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner in Brussels. I sought this meeting to get co-ordinated action across Europe for consumers so that they can have confidence in what they are buying. I am pleased to report that we reached agreement on a number of key issues in order to ensure that the current unacceptable situation with horsemeat cannot happen again.

First, there will be a three-month programme of DNA testing of beef products across the EU covering domestic and imported products, with first results by 15 April. Meat products across the EU will be DNA tested for horsemeat. In addition, both domestic and imported horsemeat will be tested for bute. The current system is based on paperwork, this introduces a programme of testing real products.

Secondly, we agreed to a new intelligence system so that information about the current investigations can be shared immediately. This will enable other member states to act straight away if they have any suspicions that food businesses are not playing by the rules. Members states also agreed to use Europol to co-ordinate law enforcement efforts, something I will be discussing further with representatives of Europol and Eurojust in the Hague this morning.

Thirdly, because of the urgency with which we have to deal with what is clearly an international issue, we agreed that the European Commission’s report and recommendations on labelling the origin of all processed meat should be accelerated and published as soon as possible. I expect that this will provide consumers with clearer and more reliable information on where meat products come from.

Fourthly, we agreed that implementation of these actions will be progressed urgently at an emergency meeting of member state food experts in the Standing Committee on the food chain and animal health on 15 February. I also requested that these issues should be put to all EU Agriculture Ministers at the Agriculture Council meeting on 25 and 26 February, which was agreed. This agreement represents a clear and immediate response to the current Europe-wide incidents and demonstrates the strong will across affected member states to ensure that consumers get honest food labelling they can rely on and that firm enforcement action is taken against fraudulent activity.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (January)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

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

I represented the UK on agricultural matters and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for natural environment and fisheries, represented the United Kingdom on fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP and Alun Davies AM were also part of the United Kingdom delegation.

Fisheries

Work programme

The presidency ran through its work programme, underlining its priority to progress and adopt the common fisheries policy (CFP) reform package.

CFP reform

The presidency wants to return to the CFP basic regulation in February and have political agreement on the whole package in June; they urged member states to work flexibly towards a compromise rather than repeat their existing positions. All member states agreed they could support the timeline but many highlighted the issues they would need to see resolved before agreement could be reached. Despite a large number of member states stressing the need to stick to the Council’s general approach as closely as possible, many suggested they will seek delays to key deadlines, for example on discards or to make the provisions less ambitious.

Skaggerak

The Commission outlined the background to their proposal for a regulation on technical control measures in the area between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, explaining that it was needed in order to allow fishing to continue under a discard ban; a view backed by Denmark and Sweden. The UK and others saw this regional approach to a specific regional situation as reflecting the shape of the future CFP. Some were more hesitant about the use of CCTV for control purposes in this case, but they could accept it if it was not used as a precedent for implementing the discard ban elsewhere.

EU-Norway

Recent negotiations with Norway resulted in increases of the total allowable catches (TACs) for a number of species including North sea haddock, saithe, plaice, whiting and herring. The EU gained access to more Arctic cod and exchanges with Norway fairly reflected the interests of the different member states. The Faroes declared its intent to set its own TAC unilaterally on Atlanto-Scandian herring. The Commission would look closely into what could be done in response to this, including all legal measures available. The Commission also reported that the EU and Norway had agreed to take the traditional 90% of the mackerel TAG which was to be reduced in line with ICES advice. There was a need to consider further the possible introduction of trade sanctions against Iceland and Faroe Islands, but the Commission would continue to prepare suitable legislation.

Ministerial lunch

The ministerial lunch involved a discussion on how to secure agreement with the European Parliament over multi-annual plans; given a likely institutional disagreement over the correct legal base.

Agriculture

Common agricultural policy (CAP) reform road map

The presidency began by underlining their objective of securing an inter-institutional political agreement on CAP reform in June. The Commission welcomed the proposed timetable and confirmed that it would bring forward a transitional proposal for 2014 once the MFF had been agreed. Some member states highlighted a list of issues which they considered priorities and would need resolving before an agreement could be met. The UK supported the proposed timetable from the presidency highlighting the need to reach a deal to provide certainty for farmers and the food industry and underline the need for it to be a good deal for farmers, consumers and taxpayers. The UK also highlighted the disappointing EP agriculture committee votes, which risked halting or reversing the CAP’s progress towards a more market-orientated policy.

Any Other Business

Pig sow stall ban

A total of 17 member states were not compliant with the sow stall ban which came into force on 1 January 2013. The Commission stressed that non-compliance would impact on the single market and the perception of the EU’s ability to implement its decisions; but also noted that any national restrictions on imports would be against the spirit of the treaty. It was holding a stakeholder conference at the same time as the Council to discuss solutions and encourage compliance. The UK, supported by others, called for vigorous Commission pursuance of the level playing field, so that compliant producers would not be disadvantaged by inaction elsewhere in Europe.

Neonicotinoids (risk assessment for bees)

The Dutch introduced a request for EU-wide measures. A ban on all neonicotinoids did not appear justified. Many member states intervened to echo the need for further consideration of the evidence and, if necessary, for action to be taken at EU level. The UK emphasised the need for a science-based and proportionate approach. The UK also highlighted that it had carried out field research to address gaps in the evidence and would provide this to the Commission as soon as it is ready. The Commission agreed that EU action was needed and would bring forward a proposal for legally binding measures to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) on 31 January. The Commission aimed to complete its impact assessment by May.

European school fruit scheme

The Commission introduced its evaluation of this EU scheme which last year supplied fruit to eight million children across 24 member states. The presidency confirmed that a forthcoming meeting of the special committee on agriculture would be invited to consider the Commission’s evaluation in more detail.

EU-Singapore free trade agreement

The Commission stressed that it had met a key aim of protecting EU agricultural products with geographical indications (GIs) as part of this trade agreement. Singapore would bring in legislation to guarantee such GIs from 2014 and the FTA would not be signed until this guarantee was complete. France and Italy intervened and were reluctant to give full approval until they could see how this guarantee would work.

EU-Canada free trade agreement and WTO negotiations

Negotiations on the FTA with Canada were entering the final phase. Canadian access to the EU fresh meat market is causing concern with some member states, which the EU needs to consider in the light of the interaction between the different FTAs. EU has made clear that a satisfactory result is necessary on geographical indications (GIs), enhancing protection of EU GIs in Canada. These issues would have to be overcome in order to finalise the EU-Canada FTA. On the WTO Doha development agenda (DDA), developing countries would want movement on agriculture and the EU may have to compromise on this, in order to secure a DDA trade facilitation agreement. The UK welcomed progress on trade, which is a key driver of economic growth, and supported swift progress on EU-Canada FTA, EU-US trade talks and the DDA.

Food Standards Agency (Horsemeat Investigation)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Written Statements

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

I wish to update the House on an important development since my oral statement on horsemeat on 11 February.

As part of its audit of all horse abattoirs in the UK and ongoing investigation into the mislabelling of meat products, the Food Standards Agency, supported by the police, yesterday entered two meat premises. One was in west Yorkshire and the other in west Wales. The FSA is looking into the circumstances through which meat products, purporting to be beef for kebabs and burgers, were sold when they included horsemeat. It will involve the police further as necessary.

The plant in west Yorkshire is Peter Boddy Licensed Slaughterhouse, Todmorden, which is believed to have supplied horse carcases to Farmbox Meats Ltd, Llandre, Aberystwyth.

West Yorkshire and Dyfed-Powys police entered the premises with the FSA. The FSA has suspended operations at both these plants while its investigations continue. The FSA has detained all meat found and seized paperwork, including customer lists from the two companies.

The FSA is in the process of establishing the customers of the Welsh business so that the necessary action can be taken to recall and recover products sold that may be contaminated. It will then notify customers. Both the slaughterhouse and the business in Wales have a legitimate trade in horsemeat, but investigations so far indicate that horsemeat has been used in UK produce as though it is beef.

As I told the House yesterday, it is totally unacceptable if any business in the UK is found to be defrauding the public by passing off horsemeat as beef. The FSA will continue to work closely with the police and if there is any evidence of criminal activity, I will expect the full force of the law to be brought down on anyone involved.

I will keep the House updated.

Horsemeat

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

The beef on sale right now in UK supermarkets is probably of a higher quality than ever. Lots of local and independent butchers have seen a spike in trade lately as a result of what has happened.

I said that there was no safe dose of bute for humans. I am not a medical expert, but bute can cause serious adverse side effects so should be consumed only under medical supervision—[Interruption.] Government Front Benchers are chuntering already, Mr Speaker; that is not a good sign.

The positive test on Freeza Meats led the inspectors to the meat trader, Martin McAdam, who admitted to buying the meat from a UK company, Flexi Foods, in Hull last July. A spokesman for Mr McAdam said:

“That shipment was the first one that came to light. Subsequently other tests identified other shipments of meat.”

He has identified the names of other companies involved, and on Friday I received that information. These UK food companies may or may not have supplied suspect meat products to Mr McAdam, but while there is a question mark over them, the food industry has a right to have that information.

On Friday I wrote to the Secretary of State offering to share that information with him. When he replied to me yesterday, he urged me to hand it over to the police and to the Food Standards Agency, as I already had done, and I assume that he now has it. On Saturday, however, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Yesterday, when I asked him why not, he failed to answer. Why did he not tell the food industry where to look? Why has he not released those names to the public so that we can have full transparency on this problem? If the Government want the industry to test on the basis of risk, why did he not share the names of the companies at Saturday’s meeting?

In the FSA advice to the public sector issued at 10 o’clock on Sunday night, the Secretary of State laid the responsibility for food safety squarely on other people’s shoulders. He said:

“We are reminding public bodies (schools, prisons, hospitals, armed forces) of their responsibility for their own food contracts. We expect them to have rigorous procurement procedures in place with reputable suppliers.”

If he knows that there are problems with some UK-based companies, why has he not told head teachers, local authorities and hospital bosses about the companies that are being investigated? I am happy to give way now if he would like to intervene.

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

I am very happy to do so. I have been restraining myself, Mr Speaker, because of your injunction to be as brief as possible. The Food Standards Agency, set up by the hon. Lady’s party when in government, has been quite clear in giving advice to all those who supply to public institutions such as prisons, schools and hospitals. As I said yesterday in my statement and will say again in a few minutes, food suppliers have the ultimate responsibility for the quality of what they sell.

[Mary Creagh]

We are none the wiser about whether the Secretary of State knows the names of these companies, which prompts the question of whether the FSA has told him or whether he has asked it. Perhaps he will clarify that.

On Friday the FSA said that the police were involved, and I thought that things were under control. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA but there was no live criminal investigation. Will the Secretary of State tell us what action the FSA has taken against these companies? Has it been into their premises and seized evidence, and why have the police not been called in? If there are no problems with these companies, will he say so clearly now, on the record?

Last Thursday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. However, the Secretary of State cannot seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results. Does he think that surveying just 224 products across the country rises to the challenge of this scandal when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? How many of the 10 million withdrawn burgers have been tested? Are there any plans to test them now? If they had been tested when they were withdrawn, Ministers would able to reassure us or tell us the extent of this scandal, but because they were paralysed by fear or incompetence, or both, we are still in the dark. Will the Secretary of State confirm that only a fraction of the supermarket tests will be completed and reported by this Friday?

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many product lines members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? Yesterday I asked him which members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn their products as a precaution and whether any of them have withdrawn products that may have gone to schools and hospitals. Is he prepared to answer those questions today?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good to be back at the Dispatch Box to talk about this subject for the second day running. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on persuading her party hierarchy to bring this important issue to the Floor of the House of Commons again. I made an oral statement to the House yesterday, in which I set out the facts about what had happened and the ongoing investigations into those incidents. I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House on further developments.

Since yesterday, Tesco has confirmed that frozen spaghetti bolognese from the same factory as the other withdrawn Comigel products has tested positive for horsemeat. The product has been withdrawn as a precaution. That result does not suggest that there is a new source of illegal horsemeat.

I am meeting senior figures from the UK food chain at the Institute of Grocery Distribution later today with the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Lord Rooker, to whom I spoke this morning. I can also confirm that the meeting with key European Ministers and the Commission that I proposed is taking place in Brussels tomorrow evening. I will be speaking to the Dutch Minister, Sharon Dijksma, and the Polish Minister, Stanislaw Kalemba, later today.

In my statement yesterday, I set out the action that I have taken to ensure that retailers, meat manufacturers and processors are carrying out urgent testing of processed beef products and making their test results public.

It is clear from my conversations with European Ministers and Commissioner Borg in recent days that the European Commission recognises the urgency of the incidents.

[Mr Donohoe]

When the Secretary of State meets his counterparts in Europe, will he raise the problems that I raised earlier, which he would have heard if he had been in his place, about exporting from our marketplace to the new markets in the far east?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that I jotted down his constituency and was going to mention his point later in my speech, but I will do so now. He raises a pertinent point. It is vital that we get to the bottom of this matter as fast as possible, because we have very strict traceability in this country, very rigorous production systems and very high quality, and we do not want any slur to be cast on that or any attempt to export our excellent products to be slowed down by incidents that so far appear to be the result of criminal acts carried out abroad.

[Mr MacNeil]

Many farmers, crofters and primary producers have an onerous burden of responsibility and bureaucracy. I seek assurances that this matter will not be used as an excuse for a cloak-and-dagger increase in that already onerous burden. The traceability should retain the vote of confidence and we should not add to the burdens.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we must make absolutely sure that we do not create further regulatory burdens. What we need to do is to make the checks more relevant to the products. I will come to that point in a moment.

[Mary Creagh]

It is great to hear this most Eurosceptic of Secretaries of State doing his bit for European co-operation in this area. Will he press his European colleagues to carry out random testing in their countries like that being carried out by UK supermarkets?

[Mr Paterson]

The shadow Secretary of State is again ahead of the game with respect to what I will say in my speech. I said yesterday in my statement that I have a gut feeling—actually, it is a clear belief—that too much is taken on trust in the current system. Too often, it is taken on trust that when a truck is loaded, the contents of the pallets are marked on the manifest and the certificate. From that point on, nothing is looked at. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) that we need to do more testing. I discussed that yesterday and again this morning with Lord Rooker. When this is all over, there will be a process of learning the lessons. I will be keen to establish more systematic testing of products so that we actually look at the material. That answers some of the hon. Lady’s questions about the Freeza plant in Northern Ireland. At the moment, the system is very much paper-based and too much is taken on trust.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that has already been learned is that it is a fallacy that people can have cheap food and quality food? The two do not go hand in hand. We have to educate the marketplace and the consumer that if people want good-quality, tasty food, they have to pay for it. Chasing the notion of cheap food, which many supermarkets have done irresponsibly, will be the ruination of a vital industry.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but I think that we have to be careful. There are citizens in this country who want to buy a product for speed and convenience, but who do not want to pay a premium price. They deserve exactly the same rigorous quality standards and exactly the same adherence to what is on the label as everybody else. If they buy a cheaper product marked “processed beef”, they should jolly well get processed beef. They should be as aggrieved as anyone who buys the most expensive sirloin steak if what they buy is not what it says on the label. If people in this country buy a cheap product, they should get a good product that conforms to the label. That is an important principle for consumers and one that I have discussed with the retailers.

[Miss McIntosh]

Before the meetings tomorrow, will the Secretary of State ensure that product checks have been carried out on exports from other European countries that have come into Britain? Will he take the best legal advice from the Department or the top Government lawyers on the possibility of using the Cassis de Dijon case as the basis of turning down inferior products until such time as it is shown whether they are being passed off as something that they are not? That would be entirely legal under the Food Safety Act 1990 and EU food labelling regulations.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question. I bow to her knowledge on these matters as a former Member of the European Parliament. I discussed that matter briefly with Commissioner Borg yesterday. He confirmed what I had said over the weekend: unless there is a threat to public health and safety, there are no grounds for stopping imports. Fraudulent labelling and mislabelling are quite wrong, but he made it clear during our brief conversation, on which I hope to elaborate tomorrow, that those were not grounds for preventing the importation of a material within the European Union. However, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I will check the details of the regulations that she mentions. I promise that I will raise her point in the discussions tomorrow.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The point is that when lasagne that are sold as beef contain up to 100% horsemeat, there is a clear danger of contamination by bute in those products. As such, surely they would satisfy the test of being a danger to human health.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important question that came up yesterday. We have to take note of the clear advice given by the chief medical officer yesterday:

“It’s understandable that people will be concerned, but it is important to emphasise that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it would cause any harm to health”.

The meat content of the lasagne that was mentioned at the weekend, for example, was as low as 15%, so one would have to eat an extraordinarily large amount of this material to ingest a quantity of bute that would exceed the warning of the chief medical officer.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I am conscious that other Members want to get in, so I will press on and make a little more progress.

It is clear that complex cross-European supply networks are involved in these incidents. I understand that Comigel was supplying customers in 16 European countries. That is why I have pressed hard for a European response. Yesterday, my Irish, French and Romanian counterparts, and the commissioner, were enthusiastic and united in wanting to work closely with us. I look forward to taking those discussions further tomorrow in Brussels.

I have made it clear to the food industry that I expect to see meaningful results from its product testing by this Friday. The results will be published as they become available.

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

May I push the Secretary of State further on testing? Has he ordered the testing of gelatine and gelatine-based products for horse DNA? If horse DNA is found in gelatine, it would be a serious contamination of the human food chain, particularly because it would extend to food such as children’s sweets.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. However, like many Opposition Members, he is asking me to impinge on the operational independence of the Food Standards Agency, which makes decisions on the details. [Hon. Members: “Is the FSA testing that?”] I have made it clear to the food industry and the FSA that I expect to see meaningful results from the tests by Friday. I repeat what I said yesterday: consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers appear to have been misled by what appears to be a deliberate fraud.

It is important to distinguish between test results that indicate trace levels of DNA of an undeclared species and gross adulteration. So far, the results indicating flagrant adulteration have been limited to those products from the Silvercrest plant in Ireland and Comigel. It is too early to say whether they are indicative of a wider problem or isolated examples of such fraud. Either way, any case of fraud on the consumer is unacceptable, and I want all such cases to be pursued vigorously and those responsible brought to justice.

[Dr McCrea]

Will the Secretary of State assure me and the House on one point? The financial burden for any extra testing should not be placed on producers within the United Kingdom. They are not to blame, so they should not carry the burden.

[Mr Paterson]

The European law is clear that retailers are key. They are responsible for the quality and validity of what they say is in the box and what is on the label, and for ensuring that they conform. The prime responsibility is with the retailer.

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Mr Russell Brown]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), because he tried to intervene earlier.

[Mr Brown]

The Secretary of State has spoken of criminal and fraudulent activity, as he did yesterday. There are many cases of contamination. Is he indicating that we are witnessing organised criminal activity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

That is a perfectly valid question, but it is too early to tell. I will probably learn more in meetings tomorrow. Minister Le Foll is investigating in France to try to get to the bottom of things. The French are checking invoices, manifests, trucking times and arrival times to find out what is behind the contamination. As I said yesterday, Minister Constantin was emphatic that the procedures in Romania are correct, which is why I made a call this afternoon to the Dutch Minister. We know that something somewhere is going horribly wrong, and we are determined to work closely to get to the bottom of it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I am looking at the clock and must push on.

The criminal justice system in the UK and across Europe is taking this very seriously. We are ready to act in whatever way is justified by the emerging facts. I shall repeat myself, because it is important that Opposition Members understand this: overall, food safety is a European competence. Council regulation 178/2002 confirms that food operators have primary responsibility for food safety and quality. In the UK, under the system this Government inherited, the independent Food Standards Agency is the lead enforcement authority for food safety and authenticity.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Paterson]

I will give way one more time, then I must push on.

[Mr Watts]

The Secretary of State seems to be placing a great deal of faith in the FSA. Given that it has failed in this case, what confidence does he have that it can get its act together and ensure that people’s health is protected?

[Mr Paterson]

That is absolutely glorious! Labour Members are attacking their own creation. That is one of the institutions they created and of which they are most proud. In previous food crises, they said politicians must not be involved and that there should be an independent agency. However, the hon. Gentleman is attacking the independent FSA, which is run effectively by Lord Rooker, who I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows well, because they are ex-colleagues. As a coalition, we are co-operating to see whether we can make the system work. There are improvements to make—I will come to those—but we are working with the FSA and respecting its independence. That is why, while the issue one of DNA and before the step change of the Findus case, we left the independent agency to take the prime lead. It is not appropriate for me to infringe on its independence.

Many cases of poor food hygiene and food adulteration are dealt with effectively by that route. The police would take the lead only if there were evidence of serious, organised criminality in the UK. The FSA identified that such criminality was potentially involved and last week alerted both the Metropolitan police and Europol. The FSA’s investigations are ongoing. The police are well aware of the developing situation, but at what point they take the lead is a judgment for them and the FSA, based on the evidence. It is not a decision for me or the shadow Secretary of State. We must respect the independence of the police.

The Opposition have made a great deal of the risks to consumers in Europe of horses slaughtered in the UK because of possible residues of the drug bute. In line with advice from the chief medical officer, the Government have tightened the system we inherited. Last week, we moved to 100% testing of horses slaughtered at abattoirs, and accelerated the rate at which tests can be completed. As of yesterday, no carcase will be released unless and until it has tested negative for bute. However, I remind the House that, to the extent that some carcases with bute residues may have in the past entered the human food chain in Europe, the chief medical officer’s advice is that, even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it will cause any harm to health.

The British food and farming industries are two of this country’s great success stories. I will not let them be talked down. The food industry has continued to grow during the current difficult economic conditions. Its export performance in particular has been strong. In 2010, the UK food and drink industry contributed £90 billion gross value to the economy, and in 2011 achieved exports worth £18.2 billion, of which meat and meat products accounted for £1.7 billion.

Food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, employing some 3.2 million people. Jobs in the UK depend in part on consumer confidence in processed meat products. That is why I have emphasised the importance of food businesses taking rapid steps to reassure consumers and overseas markets by testing all their processed beef products and making the results public. Transparency is key to confidence.

The Government will do whatever necessary to ensure that British farmers and food manufacturers have access to export markets. That includes ensuring that British food is recognised for its rigorous standards and traceability, and that our producers do not get a bad reputation owing to the Europe-wide horsemeat incidents—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was spot on in that respect.

The food industry also needs to look to the future and embrace new technologies.

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

The Secretary of State made the point yesterday that tracing processed meat products is a paper chase. I am keen that we have proper inspections of the meat and meat products that come into this country, so that we can see what is in the lorries, which is otherwise signed off when it comes into the UK.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I confirmed a few minutes ago that I am concerned that the problem is a paper-based system. The problem is that there is too much faith—the certificate and manifest on the content of pallets is taken on trust and there is not enough testing of the material. I will discuss that with Commissioner Borg tomorrow, as I discussed it yesterday and today with Lord Rooker. We agree we can improve on the current system within the current arrangements by introducing some form of testing regime. Lord Rooker had some interesting ideas on how we might do that. My favoured concept is a form of random testing, but he might be more systematic. There will be a lessons-learned exercise afterwards, which I am keen to push on with.

On new technologies, the UK Government invest more than £410 million annually in research in the agriculture, food and drink sector. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science on the agri-tech strategy. There is a lot that is positive that we can do and are doing to help the British food and farming sectors make the most of their excellent products and high standards. I think we are all agreed on the need to maintain confidence, and that is not helped by muddying the waters with misleading suggestions that the current investigations are not being pursued vigorously and seriously. From my exchanges with the FSA chairman and industry leaders, I know that this issue is being taken very seriously across the whole food chain. Of course, we shall look at the lessons to be learned from these problems once the immediate incidents have been resolved. As I have just said, I am convinced we have a system that involves too much trust in paper-based systems and we need to look at better testing of actual products.

My top priority in the coming days and weeks will be to back the FSA as it follows through its investigations, and to collaborate with European Ministers, the Commission and the UK food industry to root out unacceptable practices and to rebuild justified confidence in food, in support of consumers. Consumers must have confidence in the products that they buy for themselves and their families. We must all work together to ensure that that is the case.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to update the House on recent developments with regard to horsemeat and food fraud.

The events that we have seen unfold over the past few days in the UK and Europe are completely unacceptable. Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers have been buying products labelled beef, which turn out to contain horsemeat. The Government are taking urgent action with the independent Food Standards Agency, the industry and our European partners.

Let me turn first to the facts. On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products on the Irish market. The Irish study identified trace amounts of horse and pig DNA in the majority of the sample, but identified one product, a Tesco burger, where there was evidence of flagrant adulteration with horsemeat. The investigations in Ireland are ongoing.

On 16 January, in order to investigate the implications for the UK market, the FSA announced a four-point plan. That included telling implicated food businesses to test their processed beef products and the launch of a full scientific study of processed beef products on the UK market.

On 31 January, the Prison Service of England and Wales notified the Food Standards Agency that traces of pork DNA had been found in a selection of meat pies labelled as halal. Although trace contamination does not necessarily indicate fraudulent activity, any contamination is clearly of concern to faith communities. The affected products were quarantined and the contracts suspended.

On 4 February, the FSA announced that it had tested a consignment of frozen meat that was being stored at Freeza Meats in Northern Ireland for horse DNA. That consignment had been detained by the local authority in October 2012 because of labelling irregularities. The consignment is under the secure control of the local authority. None of the consignment has entered the food chain and so no recall is necessary. As part of the investigation, Newry and Mourne local authority has tested current products from Freeza Meats and neither horse nor pig DNA has been found in any of those products. The FSA is undertaking a detailed investigation, which includes following the supply chain of Freeza Meats and any other producers that are implicated.

On the evening of 6 February, Findus informed the Food Standards Agency that it had confirmation of horsemeat in frozen beef lasagne products. The lasagne were produced in Luxembourg by a French company, Comigel, with the meat supplied by another French company, Spanghero. The test results were supplied to the FSA on the morning of 7 February. The FSA is investigating the case urgently in liaison with the French authorities and the police. The FSA has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that the products recalled by Findus represent a food safety risk. The 7 February announcement that very significant amounts of horsemeat had been found in Findus lasagne moved the issue from one of trace contamination to one of either gross negligence or criminality.

On 8 February, Aldi withdrew two beef products after its tests found that they contained horsemeat. The products were supplied by Comigel, the same company that supplied Findus. Asda and Tesco also withdrew products from the same suppliers on a precautionary basis.

Food regulation is an area of European competence. Under the European legal framework, main responsibility for the safety and authenticity of food lies with those who produce, sell or provide it to the customer. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency was set up by the previous Government as an independent agency, and I have sought to respect its independence. It leads the operational response, and I am today updating the House on progress with its investigations and on the action I have been taking with the industry and European counterparts. I have made clear my expectation that food businesses do whatever is necessary to provide assurances to consumers that their products are what they say they are.

The Minister of State and the FSA met food retailers and suppliers on 4 February and made it clear that we expect the food industry to publish results of its own testing of meat products to provide a clearer public picture of standards in the food chain. In response to the Findus announcement of 7 February, the FSA asked in addition that all producers and retailers test all their processed beef products for the presence of horsemeat. On Saturday 9 February I called in the major food retailers, manufacturers and distributors to make clear my expectation that they verify and trace the source of all their processed beef products without delay.

At that meeting with the British Retail Consortium, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Meat Processors Association, the Federation of Wholesale Distributors, the Institute of Grocery Distribution and individual retailers, I made it clear that I expected to see from them the following: meaningful results from testing by the end of this week; more testing of products for horse along the supply chain and that the industry co-operates fully with the FSA on that; publication of industry test results every three months through the FSA; and that they let the FSA know as soon as they become aware of a potential problem in their products. I made it very clear that there must be openness and transparency in the system for the benefit of consumers, and that retailers and processors must deliver on those commitments to reassure their customers.

Let me reiterate: immediate testing of products will be done across the supply chain, including suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons as well as retailers. The FSA issued advice to public service providers on Sunday 11 February in advance of the working week. I also reiterate that the FSA has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that recalled products represent a food safety risk. The chief medical officer’s advice is that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk that it would cause any harm to health. People who have bought Findus beef lasagne products are advised not to eat them and return them to the shop they bought them from as a precaution.

The ultimate source of these incidents is still being investigated, but it is already clear that we are dealing with Europe-wide supply networks. I am taking action to ensure effective liaison with the European Commission and other member states, and I have been in touch with Irish Minister Simon Coveney on several occasions since 28 January. I have spoken to him twice again today and have also spoken to European Commissioner Borg, the French Minister Stéphane Le Foll and Romanian Minister Daniel Constantin. I emphasised the need for rapid and effective action, and I am grateful for the good co-operation there has already been.

I have agreed with Minister Coveney that there will be an urgent meeting with Commissioner Borg of Ministers from the member states affected. In addition we agreed that this issue will be on the agenda of the Agriculture Council on 25 February. At the moment this appears to be an issue of fraud and mislabelling, but if anything suggests the need for changes to surveillance and enforcement in the UK we will not hesitate to make those changes. Once we have established the full facts of the current incidents and identified where enforcement action can be taken, we will want to look at the lessons to be learned from this episode. I will make a further statement about that in due course.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I completely understand why people are so concerned about this issue. It is unacceptable that they have been deceived in this way. There appears to have been criminal activity in an attempt to defraud the consumer. The prime responsibility for dealing with this lies with retailers and food producers who need to demonstrate that they have taken all necessary actions to ensure the integrity of the food chain in this country. I am in daily contact with the FSA. This week I will be having further contact with European counterparts and I will be meeting the food industry again, together with the FSA, tomorrow. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

On Friday, No. 10 told the press that the Secretary of State was working hard at his desk, getting a grip on this crisis. But in fact he had to be called back to London from his long weekend—crisis, what crisis? Until Saturday’s panic summit, he had not actually met the food industry to address this crisis. The food Minister had met with the food industry just once, exactly a week ago.

On Friday, I received information that three British companies were involved, potentially, in importing beef that actually contained horse. I wrote to the Secretary of State, offering to share the information with him. I also handed it to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. On Friday, the FSA said that the police were involved, so I was reassured. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA, but that there was no live criminal investigation. On Saturday, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Why not? If the Government want the food industry to test on the basis of risk, why did the Secretary of State not share the names of those companies at Saturday’s meeting?

On Thursday, DEFRA announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. Does the Secretary of State seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results? Can he confirm that that will be the first survey of product content that his Department has carried out since his Government removed compositional labelling from the Food Standards Agency in 2010? He talks about the FSA’s operational independence, but it is not responsible for the content of our food—he is. When will he stop hiding behind civil servants and take some responsibility? Does he think that surveying just 224 products from across the country matches the scale of this scandal, when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? Can he confirm today to the House that not all of those thousands of tests will be completed by Friday?

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many lines the members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? In his letter to me last Friday, he stated that some members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn products as a precaution. Can he tell the House which members have withdrawn which products, and whether any of them supplies schools, prisons and hospitals? The supermarkets have acted with speed and a degree of transparency on this that puts him to shame. I am disappointed that the hospitality industry and caterers have not been as candid.

In his letter to me, the Secretary of State said that the FSA is taking up individual suspicious incidents with authorities and the police across Europe. He said in the media this weekend that there is an international criminal conspiracy at work. Does he think that international criminals are present everywhere in Europe apart from in the United Kingdom? The French Government estimate that the Findus fraud alone has netted criminals €300,000. This is clearly big criminal business. Why have the UK police not investigated on the basis of the intelligence supplied? Has he had the full results of the tests carried out by the Irish authorities?

At Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions nearly three weeks ago, I asked the food Minister about horses contaminated with bute slaughtered in the UK and entering the human food chain. It has now been confirmed that of the nine UK horses that tested positive for bute, one was stopped, five went to France, two to the Netherlands and one to the UK. However, when council officials approached the people who had supposedly taken the horse to eat it, they had no knowledge of what had happened to it.

There has been talk of an EU import ban, but has the Secretary of State considered the possibility that horses are going to UK and Irish abattoirs and entering the food chain in the UK? Which horse abattoirs in the UK are on the FSA’s cause for concern list? Have any horses presented for slaughter in the past month been rejected by officials because of concerns over their passports? If so, where and how many?

The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has clear evidence of illegal trade in unfit horse from Ireland to the UK for meat, with horses being re-passported to meet demand for horsemeat in mainland Europe. It says that there are currently 70,000 horses unaccounted for in Northern Ireland. Unwanted horses are being sold for €10 and sold on for meat for €500—a lucrative trade. It is convenient to blame the Poles and Romanians, but so far neither country has found any problems with its beef abattoirs.

When will the Secretary of State get his story straight on bute? This horse medicine is banned from the food chain for a reason. On Friday, he said:

“I would have no hesitation at all in eating these products.”

Yet on Sunday he said that this food could be injurious to human health. The Health Secretary said it is just a labelling issue. Is this not symptomatic of the Government’s dangerous complacency?

I note the chief medical officer’s advice to people this morning. What levels of bute have to be present in the meat for it to be a human health risk? Will the Secretary of State tell us what the safe limits of bute consumption for human beings are, given that it is banned from the human food chain? The British public must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe. When Ministers came to the Commons to answer my urgent question on 17 January, the food Minister said:

“It is important that neither the hon. Lady nor anyone else in this House talks down the British food industry.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 1027.]

These invisible regulatory services protect our consumers and our food industry, and allow it to export all over the world. [Interruption.] I think Government Members would do well to listen as this issue is of interest to their constituents and the lack of information from their Government has been nothing short of a disgrace.

This weekend consumer confidence in British food was sinking like a stone. Food is a £12 billion industry that supports hundreds of thousands of UK jobs and exports. In common with No. 10, it is rapidly losing faith in this Secretary of State’s ability to lead them through this crisis.

[Mr Paterson]

You would not think that we had inherited Labour’s system would you, Mr Deputy Speaker? You really wouldn’t. I always admire the hon. Lady—she really has a nerve.

This issue is a European competence. As agreed by her Government, the independent Food Standards Agency was set up and we have followed their policy of respecting that independence. Today, I talked to its chairman, Lord Rooker, whom she knows well, and he agreed that we had respected its independence. In the early stages of this history, this was an issue of trace DNA in an Irish abattoir. Once it came to the Findus case, where there was a significant volume of horse material, it took on a whole new dimension. He agreed that it was then appropriate that the Secretary of State should become publicly involved, as I have been in recent days. The hon. Lady is critical of the FSA’s survey—on which I wish it well. I raised it with the noble Lord this afternoon, and he agreed that April was the intended end date for these results, but that he could possibly publish some of them as he works through.

The hon. Lady completely misses the point that the retailers are responsible for the quality and content of their food. That is laid down in European law. Her Government passed a statutory instrument in 2002. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Lady shouting. She must understand that under the current arrangements it is for retailers to decide. She has completely missed the point that they are responsible for testing, they are responsible for the integrity of their food and they are responsible to their customers. They have a massive self-interest in this, because obviously they want their customers to come back. She will be pleased to hear that we had a most satisfactory meeting on Saturday, and they will be bringing forward meaningful results by the end of this week.

The hon. Lady went on a bit about the police. [Interruption.] I agree with my hon. Friends that she went on and on about the police. This is a serious issue, and the FSA has raised it with the Metropolitan police, but the hon. Lady must understand that until there is a criminal action in this country, they cannot take action. However, the FSA has been in touch with Europol, because it does look as though there have been criminal cases on the continent.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Irish test. I have had a conversation this afternoon with Minister Coveney. We have agreed that there will be protocol between our two independent agencies to agree testing equivalents and to work extremely closely together, because our two food industries so often work in co-operation on either side of the Irish sea.

The hon. Lady mentioned horses. Today, Lord Rooker will announce that further to our recent announcement that all horses slaughtered in this country will be tested for bute, no carcase will be released until it has been proven positive.

Finally, the advice on food is very simple. I have been completely consistent. It must have been in an interview and I think she mis-heard the second part of a sentence when I was speaking. I have been absolutely clear. The independent agency that gives professional advice is the Food Standards Agency. I, the hon. Lady, hon. Members and the public should follow its advice. As long as products are free for sale and have not been recommended for withdrawal by the FSA, they are safe for human consumption. I recommend that she follows the advice of the independent agency that her Government set up.

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

Is it not absolutely right that this is a European problem that requires a European solution? This contaminated meat should never have entered the UK food chain. It now appears that the Romanian authorities did not do the product and labelling checks before the contaminated food left Romanian shores. Will my right hon. Friend please assure us that he will confirm, with both the Commission and the Romanian Minister, that these product checks are in place and that no further consignment should be admitted into this country until we know it is as marked on the label? Will he also look to the European food labelling regulations, articles 7 and 8, that permit precautionary temporary measures to be put in place to save our retailers from this expense? Will he also ask the FSA why it did not commence inspections when it was told that the Irish FSA was doing so in November last year?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for her question. Commissioner Borg made it clear to me today that there were no grounds for banning imports on mislabelling or fraud, and that that could happen only if human safety might be imperilled. I have also spoken to Minister Constantin in Romania, who was very emphatic on this point—we have to be fair to all countries involved. He made it quite clear to me—I am happy to share this with the House—that the two main named abattoirs, one of which only deals with horsemeat, shipped products that were correctly labelled. Horsemeat was shipped and it was labelled as horsemeat. I therefore think that this case has some distance further to travel, and we should not jump to conclusions, which is why I am pleased that my discussions with Minister Coveney have led to an agreement that the Agriculture Ministers of the half dozen countries concerned will meet. We all want to get to the bottom of this.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that there is no evidence of criminal activity in this country, but may I remind him that inaccurate labelling is illegal? Why has it taken him more than three weeks to summon the retailers and four weeks to come to the House? Given that the highly respected Chair of the Select Committee said on the “Today” programme on Friday that she would not eat processed beef products, why is he still recommending that people do?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that inaccurate labelling is an offence. At the moment, we have to establish exactly what is in these materials and who is responsible for the label. In the Findus case, that material has been withdrawn.

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

We have the red tractor and other farm assurance schemes that guarantee that meat from those sources is guaranteed through to processed product. May I urge the Secretary of State to urge people to eat that type of meat, which is completely traceable? Finally, Europe has been far too lax on this type of meat processing for many years, so we need a tightening up across the whole of Europe in order to know exactly what we are eating.

[Mr Paterson]

I am entirely happy to recommend to all consumers in this country that they buy good British products in which they can have faith. We have extraordinarily rigorous processes for traceability and production systems, so I have total confidence in British products and strongly recommend them to the British consumer.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why companies such as Tesco can consistently reject entire consignments of our farmers’ fruit and veg for being misshapen—at the cost of the farmer—yet have not focused the same attention on processed meat in their own lines, because it is not at the front of the freezer and does not affect the appearance? Will he ensure that in future the FSA has in perpetuity statutory powers to instruct retailers to carry out tests on their entire product lines consistent with the volume of product being shifted over the year?

[Mr Paterson]

Unlike the last Government, we have set up a groceries adjudicator, which answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On the second one, he will be pleased to hear that at Saturday’s meeting we agreed that retailers would carry out this testing, which will have meaningful results by the end of the week. Further to that, however, I want these results published on a regular basis—every three months.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I express my entire confidence in how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with this issue? Does it not raise a further point, however, which is that British farmers are handicapped when trying to compete with food producers from countries that not only do not carry out the appropriate checks, but have much lower animal welfare standards than we do?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right. It is a scandal that, despite our egg producers last year conforming to the enriched cages directive, and despite the fact that again this year we were 100% up because we were the first out of the traps to end tethering, some major European countries have still not conformed. I raised that point with Commissioner Borg at our last Council meeting and wrote to him about it last week.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that cuts to the FSA and the introduction of the self-regulatory hazard analysis and critical control points system will not compromise, and never has compromised, meat hygiene inspections and the ability to ensure that meat is legal and safe?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady, having read out a Whips’ handout, has unwittingly touched on an incredibly important question. The whole issue concerns a paper-based system that places too much faith in the accuracy of the paper recording what might be in the pallet or consignment, so she is absolutely right to raise the question of testing. I briefly discussed this point with Commissioner Borg today and have discussed it with the noble Lord Rooker. I would like to see more random testing of products halfway through the process, so she is on the button—it is a most important point.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that prime responsibility must lie with the retailers, and that retailers should use some of their vast profits to ensure product quality and guarantee that their products are exactly what they say they are?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Consumers must have faith in the products provided by the retailers. It is the retailers’ responsibility to present consumers with goods that are wholesome, of quality and conform to the label. It is important that the retailers get out there and sell their systems and products in a way that keeps the faith of the consumer.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that Findus still has serious questions to answer. In particular, exactly when did the company have a reasonable suspicion that the supply chain was contaminated and who took the decision not to enact an immediate product recall? Ultimate responsibility lies with the man at the top—in this case, Manhattan-based private equity investor Dale Morrison. Does he agree that it is shameful that he has not flown to the UK immediately to tackle this problem or issued a word of contrition?

[Mr Paterson]

I talked to the UK chief executive of Findus on Saturday afternoon, but I think we have to be cautious about what we say, because I understand that Findus might launch legal proceedings against Comigel and possibly Spanghero. The important point, however, is that I made it clear at our meeting on Saturday that from now on, the minute that any food business has evidence that there might be something untoward in a product or that something might not conform, it must tell the FSA immediately, and that as soon as that evidence is corroborated by a scientifically valid laboratory test, the product should be withdrawn very publicly. I made it clear to the retailers that I would strongly support any withdrawal on those grounds.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisive action in this matter. Quite rightly, his priority should be the safety of consumers and restoring confidence in our great British food industry. He knows, however, that the national equine database was closed down last December. What assessment has he made of the impact of that closure on the Department’s ability to keep track of horses in the UK, and is he confident that the current systems available to him enable his Department to keep a track on equine movements and locations?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments. She is right to raise the issue of equine databases. We have absolute confidence that we have access to all the information contained in the various ones around the country, and we are also very clear that the significant statement today by the noble Lord Rooker—that every single horse carcase will be held until it is proved clear—will be of great reassurance to the British consumer.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Highly processed foods of this kind are more likely to form a larger part of the diets of low-income families—of which there are far too many in Newcastle thanks to this Government’s actions. Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that when someone in Blakelaw buys a burger, they need to research the entire supply chain, rather than relying on the Government and the Secretary of State?

[Mr Paterson]

This is a serious misunderstanding. The hon. Lady must understand that under this system it is the retailers who are responsible. It is for the retailers to get out there and show their customers that their processed beef products are sound, that they have increased random testing and that these products are completely clear. It is for the retailers to prove that they can reassure their customers.

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

Illegal meat trading is one of the most profitable criminal activities, with limited penalties. Replacing dear beef with cheap horsemeat enables huge profits to be made. Does the Secretary of State agree that the active involvement of Europol is essential to break up the complex criminal food chains that have been set up to take advantage of our consumers?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, there is significant money to be made from this criminal activity. It is a fraud on the public. It is absolutely wrong that a British consumer should go to a retail outlet and buy a product marked “processed beef” and find later that it contains horsemeat. It is a straight fraud. It is criminal activity. We are absolutely determined to bear down on it, working with our European partners to stop it, and I am delighted that the FSA is working closely with Europol.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, produces first-class meat products, but this meat scandal has seriously damaged public confidence in the safety of our food and is depressing an industry that is already struggling because of weather conditions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to restore confidence is to find out who has engaged in this illegal activity, put them out of business and bring them before the courts?

[Mr Paterson]

I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. This is a fraud on the public. It is wrong for them to be presented with a product and find out later that it is not what is claimed. There is no health issue here; this is an issue of fraud and labelling. With reference to his previous question, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to get the perpetrators—these criminals—and stop this practice.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Irish Food Safety Authority has been ahead of the Food Standards Agency every step of the way. The people I am concerned about are the British beef producers. Nobody seems to care about them. They have seen their products replaced by poor fakes. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it and how are these poor, besmirched people going to get their market share back?

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad to know that many of us want to know whether the European Commission is being held accountable under the EU’s food and labelling regulations, which include specific notification of the species of the animal used in food. Will he assure us that all necessary actions and discussions are being pursued with Commissioner Borg to ensure that those with the legal obligations to audit these matters—including the directorate, under him, of the food and veterinary office—comply with EU standards?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot-on to recognise the key role of the Commissioner, as this is a European competence, and that is why I spoke to him today. I am pleased to record that he was extraordinarily co-operative. We are going to fix up a meeting—at very short notice—with him and the key Agriculture Ministers some time this week. The point my hon. Friend raises is definitely one that I will make clear to the Commissioner at that meeting.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Even allowing for the Secretary of State’s rather laid-back approach, does he not think it might have been smarter to advise that guidance be issued to schools and hospitals a little earlier than 10 o’clock last night?

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with my demeanour. I am as active as I think he will find is necessary on this issue, having been at it for many, many days now. More importantly, the advice that the FSA has given to suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons—it is exactly the same as that given to retailers—is clear. Unless the FSA recommends that a product be withdrawn, the public, schoolchildren, prisoners and those in hospitals should have faith in the product.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Phenylbutazone is an incredibly common, but useful drug to all horse owners. The presence of a verifiable, accurate and up-to-date horse passport is no guarantee whatever that a horse has not been given bute. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to check that a carcase is bute-free is to test it?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about that. That is why the FSA has today announced the new regime. Not only are all carcases being tested, but from today, not one carcase will be released until it is proven to be clear.

[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.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I offer my right hon. Friend my full support? Is this not an opportunity for patriotic purchasing, not only by buying Scottish products, but by buying British products? If consumers want to be confident in the provenance of food, they should buy local, local, local.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend has a good point. People are quite right to have great faith in their local suppliers—transport times are reduced, there is clear traceability and there will be clear local knowledge. I repeat: we have great local producers, rigorous traceability systems and stringent production systems, and we end up with superb quality.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State professes great concern about what is in our meat and the importance of accurate food labelling, yet according to press reports, the UK is trying to get an exemption from EU regulations that would limit to below 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up minced meat. Does that not completely fly in the face of what he has tried to tell the House today?

[Mr Paterson]

No, we operate on professional advice.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has told us that food regulation is an area of European competence. Some of us may think it an area of European incompetence. As a result of European failures, it seems that my constituents are getting disgusting food—whether or not it is a health risk, it is revolting. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consider emergency legislation, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, to allow us to stop importing disgusting food.

[Mr Paterson]

I look forward to sitting down with my hon. Friend and coming up with a legal definition of “disgusting food”. Let me be more positive and refer to my earlier replies: there is splendid food grown in my hon. Friend’s part of England, and I would strongly recommend his constituents to buy local.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State have confidence in the food chain, and is he confident that the imported food, not just meat, sold in our shops is safe to eat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady uses the term “food chain”. What we have seen in recent days is the extraordinary complexity involved, and I am trying to get away from the expression “food chain”. It is an extraordinary network—an amazing kaleidoscopic variety of factories and suppliers all working together. It is a real network, and what is quite clear in this case is that there has to be more rigorous and more random testing. I have faith in the advice of the independent Food Standards Agency, but down the road, and picking up on the previous question, within the constraints we work under, I would like to see more random testing.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the speedy, effective, thorough and robust way in which he has handled this issue. My local butcher in Braintree clearly labels its products so I know what I am buying and where it came from. I like to support our local farmers and buy local. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging retailers to have better and clear labelling, so consumers know what exactly is in the products they buy and where they come from?

[Mr Paterson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and he will be delighted to hear that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is in her place next to me on the Front Bench, is working on that very issue as we speak.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is just leaving the Chamber, was absolutely right that our near neighbour, Ireland, was ahead of the game in dealing with this issue. What can the Secretary of State learn from his Irish counterparts? On the issue of international criminality, is he confident that we have enough resources and surveillance at our ports of entry?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has, I think, missed the point. The Irish had local intelligence of a local problem in Ireland, which is why random testing was done in Ireland. On his other question, I have discussed the issue with the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, and she is clear that, with her organisation having made some sensible efficiencies, she can certainly deliver everything we ask.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Given that the problem is with international processors, can the Secretary of State reassure us that any change in legislation or regulation will not fall on the shoulders of small independent butchers and retailers?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There has been a lot of acknowledgement around the House about the benefits of local production, but sadly in recent years we have seen the closure of a large number of small local abattoirs. Such abattoirs are of real value—there are animal welfare and food-quality benefits—so we should be judicious in any moves we make and value small country abattoirs.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

If my constituents are mis-sold a range of products, they will have rights. Does the Secretary of State believe that they should have rights if they are mis-sold food products?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that of course people have a right to take their products back. What we clearly agreed with the retailers on Saturday was that if any product has been recalled, any consumer has the right to take that product back to the retailer and get a full refund.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an obvious step we could take now is to ensure that the £2 billion or so we spend each year on food for schools and hospitals is used to support our own British farmers, as is done in many other countries in Europe—a policy that our party supported vociferously when it was in opposition?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Significant sums of public money are spent on procurement and we should ensure, if we can within the rules, that it goes in the direction of British producers.

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

What was the exact date on which the Secretary of State became aware that there was a problem with horsemeat in the food chain? I want the exact date, please.

[Mr Paterson]

We were told about it and it became public knowledge on the day the announcement was made—on 15 January. This was an Irish issue and it was for the Irish to make the announcement.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

If the moratorium on EU meat products cannot be enforced under EU rules, how does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that more contaminated products are not sold in the UK?

[Mr Paterson]

I would not use the word “contaminated”; these products are “adulterated”. This is a case of fraud and mis-labelling; there is no evidence at all that these products are in any way a threat to human health. I have discussed this with Commissioner Borg today, and there is absolutely no reason under the current arrangements of European law to provide a basis for a ban. Should we find a product that is injurious to human health, we would obviously act very rapidly. The Commissioner agreed that in those circumstances we would put out a notice around Europe and all take unilateral action.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

We would all dearly like to eat anything marked with a red tractor or a Scottish saltire, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, what families eat depends on the household budget. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the retailers are responsible for what is sold, but he is responsible for the pace at which this moves forward. We are losing confidence in what people are buying, and if we do not move forward quickly, it will cause reputational damage to the agricultural industry. Will he move this on at a greater pace, and what has he done in respect of speaking to colleagues in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this needs resolving fast. I do not think any greater unity of intent could be seen than in my conversations today. Minister Le Foll from France was emphatic: the moment I suggested the meeting, he was determined to come along. We are quite clear that we all have an alliance of interest in resolving this issue as fast as possible. The hon. Gentleman is right that this issue could damage confidence, but I stress again that this is a case of fraud and mis-labelling: it is not a problem with food safety.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I very much welcome the wider debate about where our food comes from. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the increased popularity of shop local campaigns, local food co-operatives and farmers’ markets, all of which are booming in my constituency?

[Mr Paterson]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I think shopping local is good: it is good for animal welfare, good for food quality and good for local employment. I strongly support the initiatives my hon. Friend mentions.

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

I am astounded that the Secretary of State thinks that this is a mis-labelling issue, given that some beef products have not even come into contact with a cow—except perhaps sharing a field with one at some time. I am appalled when he says that there is not even a health issue. Should he not take responsibility for, and take more seriously, the potential for contamination of the human food chain by the drug bute, which is not fit for human consumption?

[Mr Paterson]

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is a case of mis-labelling and fraud; it is not a case of food safety. The noble Lord Rooker said today that, sadly, 20,000 people go to hospital because of a food-related complaint and, tragically, something like 500 die, yet he does not know of a single individual whose health has been affected by the importation of these products. I think hon. Members must get this in perspective. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bute, but I draw his attention to today’s advice from the chief medical officer, who said:

“It’s understandable that people will be concerned, but it is important to emphasise that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it would cause any harm to health”.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Front Benchers are demonstrating a degree of opportunism, given that we are operating under a system that we inherited from them? Will he confirm that no testing for horsemeat in food took place during the last seven years of the Labour Administration?

[Mr Paterson]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that that question threw the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) when she was on Andrew Neil’s programme yesterday.

The important point that my hon. Friend has made is that the Food Standards Agency is rightly targeting its efforts on problems that might be prejudicial to health. Until the case in Ireland came up, very recently, there had not been a problem with horsemeat. This is a very recent evolution, and until now the FSA has rightly been concentrating all its efforts on health problems.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Although the issue of food safety in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, this Government had responsibility during the discussions that were held with the European Commission on Scotland’s behalf. When the Secretary of State next speaks to the Scottish Agriculture Minister, will he pass on the view of the Scottish people that it is not good enough simply to test products that are manufactured in Scotland, and that goods that are retailed in Scotland must be tested as well? Do not consumers in Scotland deserve the same protection as people in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Paterson]

As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, I had a very constructive conversation yesterday with Richard Lochhead, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, and he wrote me a letter today. We will work together closely, and I will include him in discussions with the FSA. However, the hon. Gentleman, like some of his colleagues, has missed the point. The ultimate arbiters when it comes to the safety, quality and integrity of food products are the retailers. The hon. Gentleman must get his head around the fact that it is the retailers who are ultimately responsible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

When he cited the Irish example, my right hon. Friend spoke of the importance of intelligence. May I urge him, in his discussions with the slightly sleepy FSA, to challenge it on its whistleblowing procedures and incentives? We need as many people as possible to come forward, and he would be taking a great step if he asked the agency how it currently manages its whistleblowing.

[Mr Paterson]

Transparency is essential. On Saturday, we agreed that further tests would continue, and that the FSA would publish the results every three months in order to give confidence to the consumer. Ensuring that consumers go to shops and buy British goods is absolutely key.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Given the concerns about horsemeat, and given the announcement at the end of January that pork DNA had been found in pies that were supposed to be halal, many of my constituents are naturally anxious about the classification of halal meat. Can the Secretary of State tell us what meetings he has had with halal certification organisations, and can he reassure my constituents that meat that is labelled halal is indeed halal?

[Mr Paterson]

That is an important point. Many faith groups would be shocked to find that they had bought inappropriate material. This is an operational matter, which is being taken up by the FSA.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

If negligent, incompetent or, indeed, criminal producers are happy to contaminate products with horsemeat, with what else would they be prepared to cut those products? Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that products have also been tested for non-meat adulterants?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a very important question. We have no evidence that any other meat product is being used to adulterate bovine, or processed bovine, products.

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

The Secretary of State has told us that this is an issue of fraud and mislabelling, but how can he be sure, given that the random testing seems to have involved only about 1.5% of horse carcases? How can he state so categorically that there is no health issue? If more comprehensive testing by the FSA proves that there is a health issue, will he then act unilaterally?

[Mr Paterson]

I think I have made clear twice that from now on all horse carcases will be tested, and that none will be released until they are proved to be clear.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My constituents were horrified to hear of the circuitous route taken by some of the contents of everyday products before they arrive on the shop shelves. The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the high quality of British beef and other products. Is he able to restrict the import of foreign products, or is he himself restricted by European legislation?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to make clear that the only grounds on which we could talk to the Commission about a ban on the import of any product would relate to food safety, and to content that might be injurious to human health. Commissioner Borg has made clear that if we did come across a product that could present a risk to food safety, he would react very rapidly.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his handling of this crisis, which has contrasted sharply with the way in which it has been handled by the FSA. When the dust has settled, will he conduct an inquiry into why the FSA’s intelligence systems failed to identify the extensive prevalence of horsemeat in processed and ready-made meals in this country?

[Mr Paterson]

I think that a system can always be improved. We inherited the current system from the last Government. I have no doubt that there will be lessons to be learnt from this episode, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the area in which I am most interested in pursuing real progress is the introduction of random testing. Too much is taken for granted under the present system. Too often, although the paperwork is supposed to describe what is on the pallet or the truck, it goes through the system and no one actually checks. I think that we could make a massive improvement within the current constraints of European competence and all the other arrangements, but I think that random testing would make a real difference. I am pleased that Lord Rooker was so sympathetic to that idea today, as was Commissioner Borg.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

My constituency contains the abattoir of Woodhead Bros Meat Bros Co., in Colne. Woodhead, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morrisons supermarket, benefited from a £21 million investment last year and employs more than 700 people. All Morrisons’ meat and mince is 100% British-sourced. It uses its own abattoirs and maintains very high standards, as I have seen every time I have visited Woodhead Bros. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising retailers such as Morrisons which do the right thing and go the extra mile to ensure that their products are correct?

[Mr Paterson]

I have to admire the way in which Morrisons managed to penetrate every possible news outlet in order to promote its products.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I understand the technical definition, but to many of my constituents a supposed beef product that is actually horse represents a contamination.

May I pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether, if the meat had come from outside the European Union, we would now be looking at an import ban?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a good question. I assume that my hon. Friend means that the product was processed within the European Union. We should not forget that the products withdrawn by Findus were eventually processed in Luxembourg from meat which, we understand, went to Castelnaudary in France and possibly came from Romania, and that they therefore counted as European Union products. Under the existing system, a product from Comigel in Luxembourg would have to present a health risk to enable me to approach Commissioner Borg to request an import ban.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, who cannot act freely because his actions are circumscribed by the European Union. What else does he think the European Commissioner should be doing? It seems that the Commissioner does not have much of a sense of urgency in this regard. This is criminal fraud, and we know that a great deal of criminal fraud is endemic throughout the European Union. Why is the Commissioner not taking more action more quickly?

[Mr Paterson]

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to address that question directly to the Commissioner. All I can say is that the Commissioner could not have been more co-operative when I rang him today. I look forward to meeting him soon this week—certainly before the end of the week—and I shall certainly raise with him that issue of urgency.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Through the extensive use of their loyalty card schemes, the big supermarkets have a very good idea about which individual consumers are buying which beef—horse—products. At the recent summit that he held, did my right hon. Friend get any indication from the big supermarkets that they would use direct promotion to contact individual consumers, first to say sorry, secondly to restore confidence, and thirdly to offer compensation to those who have brought these products in the recent past?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said in my replies to Opposition Members, it is for the retailers to get their message across and take the necessary steps to ensure the validity and integrity of their product. It is for the retailers to communicate with their consumers to ensure that they come back.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I applaud the Secretary of State’s robust approach to eating British food; that is something that everyone in the House will agree with. I am also impressed that he has referred to random testing. Does he think that random testing should be applied to all steps of the food chain? That is an important issue that we need to discuss.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is exactly what I am thinking of. I repeat that I am concerned that the system as currently conceived is all based on trust. A product is certified at the beginning of the process with a certificate or a piece of paper to state that such and such a pallet contains such and such a product, and it then goes through the system based completely on trust. I would like to have random testing at every stage, so that everyone could be kept on their toes. That could deliver considerable benefits.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Consumer confidence is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious questions being asked about the conduct of many of our EU neighbours illustrate the urgency of implementing the display of full product origins on food labels?

[Mr Paterson]

I am very keen on more accurate labelling—the more information the better—and that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is working on.

Point of Order

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answering my question earlier, I fear that the Secretary of State might have given incorrect information. I am sure that I heard him say that he spoke to the chief executive of Findus UK on Saturday, but my understanding is that there is not currently a chief exec of the company. He left last December, hence my point about the executive chairman in New York. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State found out who was masquerading as the chief executive, if that is possible.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that I spoke to Mr Leendert den Hollander. Perhaps I have inadvertently misled the House and given him the wrong title, but that was his name.

[Mr Watson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that that person works for a completely different company—namely, Young’s Seafood.

Horsemeat and Contaminated Food

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Written Statements

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

Investigations are currently going on into a number of incidents of processed beef products containing undeclared horsemeat. These investigations are being led by the independent Food Standards Agency in liaison with authorities in other European countries and the police. The Food Standards Agency has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that the products in question represent a food safety risk.

Food fraud is completely unacceptable. Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers have been buying products labelled beef, but which turn out to be horse. I am determined that we get to the bottom of this and that any wrongdoing is prosecuted.

I met major retailers, manufacturers and distributors on 9 February to agree a clear plan of action to deal with this problem. Producers and retailers are testing their processed beef products for the presence of horsemeat and I made it clear I expected to see meaningful results from this testing by the end of this week. We also agreed that more testing of products for horse needs to be done along the supply chain.

Consumers can be confident that we will establish how this has happened and will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the integrity of the food chain in this country.

I will be making an oral statement to the House on these issues later today.

Irresponsible Dog Ownership

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce a package of measures to tackle welfare and irresponsible dog ownership on which DEFRA consulted last year.

In that consultation from April to June, we put forward a number of possible measures to encourage more responsible behaviour and deal with the consequences that irresponsible dog ownership has on everyone else. There was an overwhelming reaction to the consultation, with over 27,000 responses. I am today publishing the results of the consultation, including the proposed way forward and have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Following the results of an earlier consultation in 2010, the 2012 consultation sought views on four specific proposals:

A requirement that dogs are microchipped with details of the owner.

A change in the criminal law in section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to extend the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private property.

Allow owners of dogs seized as suspected dangerous dogs or prohibited types to retain possession of their dogs until the outcome of court proceedings.

Increase the application fee for prohibited dogs to be placed on the index of exempted dogs

Microchipping of all dogs

The responses to the consultation show there is overwhelming support, from some 96% of respondents, for some form of compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Microchipping makes a clear link between a dog and its owner. Over 100,000 dogs either stray, are lost or stolen each year with many having to be kept in kennels before being re-homed. Having a microchip means they can be reunited quickly with their owners, reducing the stress for dog and owner alike. It will also lead to substantial savings for local authorities and welfare charities who spend some £57 million a year on kennelling costs and will mean that fewer dogs are destroyed. Some 6,000 dogs have to be put down each year, because their owner cannot be found.

We have listened to the views of those who responded to the consultation particularly on the question of practicality for owners and those dealing with stray or lost dogs. Only 10% favoured the option of microchipping puppies. The 10 to 12-year delay before all dogs would be microchipped is considered too long to wait to get the benefits and the police and others did not feel it was practical.

So we will introduce regulations to require the microchipping of all dogs in England from 6 April 2016. From that date owners will need to have their dog microchipped and registered on one of the authorised commercial databases available; and they will have to register the details of any new owner before they sell or give the dog away. Owners will be required to keep their contact details up to date on the microchip databases.

DEFRA is now working with database providers and microchip suppliers to ensure minimum standards of service for commercial databases and standards of microchips, and that there is updated implantation guidance and training available as well as a one-stop 24-hour enquiry point for microchipped lost and found dogs.

I wish to thank the Dogs Trust for their very generous support which means a free microchip will be available for all unchipped dogs throughout England. The Government are working with the Dogs Trust to ensure that free microchips will be offered by the Dogs Trust to local authorities, housing associations and veterinary surgeries. A number of other animal welfare charities are offering free microchipping at their centres including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross.

We expect there to be a high compliance rate with the microchipping requirement.

Amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act

Tackling dangerous and out of control dogs was an important part of the measures put forward by DEFRA last year. The Government have decided to toughen up the existing law. The ban on owning or selling some types of dogs bred for fighting will remain for public safety reasons. We agree with advice from the police that the ban on the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina and Fila Braziliero should remain in place to protect the public and to help deal with potentially dangerous dogs. However, we also accept that any dog can become dangerous and that owners are ultimately responsible for the behaviour of their dogs. The Government’s approach is one of tackling both deed and breed.

Incidents involving dangerous dogs are on the rise, and it is wrong that the police cannot investigate offences and put them forward for prosecution simply because a dog attack occurred on private property. Eight children and six adults have been killed in dog attacks since 2005, with many of these attacks taking place in the home; five of the victims were children under the age of four years. Concerns have also been raised about dog attacks on postal workers and health visitors and social workers during home visits. People just doing their job should not be subject to dog attacks. The public agree. The consultation has shown wide support for the proposal to extend the scope of the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to all places, including private property. Extending the law will help give protection both to children in their homes, and to people who have to visit private properties such as healthcare, postal and utility workers. Postal workers in particular have suffered some terrible attacks, and the proposed change to the 1991 Act will close the loophole that has meant these attacks go unpunished. However, the proposed extension to the criminal law will not provide protection to trespassers who have entered a private property whom the householder believes has unlawful intentions. DEFRA will bring forward amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as soon as parliamentary time permits to effect this change in the law.

The Government are also concerned to ensure that irresponsible dog ownership is tackled before a serious incident has occurred. As well as the ban on certain breeds of fighting dog, DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office and other authorities to introduce new powers to help frontline professionals tackle anti- social behaviour involving dogs. The measures proposed in the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill published on 13 December 2012 will provide a set of flexible, effective tools and powers to enable police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of anti-social behaviour including dog-related incidents.

Seizure and kennelling of suspected dangerous dogs

To ensure the welfare of suspected prohibited dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings and to ease the substantial costs to the police service, Government have also decided that it should no longer be necessary for the police to seize and kennel such dogs pending the outcome of court proceedings where the police do not consider the dog presents a risk to the public. The police will have discretion to release a suspected prohibited dog where they are completely satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner. They will be allowed to put extra restrictions on the owner, for example requiring the dog to be muzzled and on a lead when in public. These changes will be made by way of amendments to the exemption scheme and can be made through secondary legislation.

We consider that allowing suspected prohibited dogs to be exempted from seizure in these circumstances strikes the right balance between protecting the public from such potentially dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after dogs are not unnecessarily removed from their homes.

Dangerous dogs index fee

We propose to raise the fee payable by the owner for placing prohibited dogs on the index of exempted dogs to £77 plus VAT from the level that was set in 1997 (£20 plus VAT), to reflect the costs involved in administering these dogs for their lifetime better and thereby reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

Other measures to address irresponsible dog ownership

Irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem and there is no single solution. The primary responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept under proper control must rest with individual owners who should only acquire a dog if they are prepared to look after it properly and make sure that it does not become a nuisance or a danger to others. A key concern of Government is the ease with which it is possible to buy a dog or other pet over the internet. There is a rise in the trend for pets to be advertised for sale in this way, and DEFRA is working closely with the animal welfare charities to develop codes of conduct for website operators and to provide guidance for buyers on the potential pitfalls of buying pets in this way. We look forward to co-operation from the industry to the benefit of all.

We consider that education also has a significant role to play in reducing the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership. Government have provided funding of £50,000 shared between the RSPCA, Battersea Cats and Dogs Home and the Dogs Trust to foster innovative local community projects to encourage responsible dog ownership in areas where there are high instances of dog-related problems. The funding was provided on the basis that the interventions will be carefully evaluated and the learning disseminated to help others working with local communities including local authorities. That evaluation is underway. Funding has been given to the Association of Chief Police Officers to support the training that they provide for officers with knowledge of dog control legislation in order to ensure that there is a centre for such expertise in every police force.

Overall this is a practical and balanced package of measures which encourages responsible dog ownership and supports local communities.