Agricultural Wages Board

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will be telling all this to the workers on his estate, but will he tell the House how many of the people on his estate will be affected by the termination of the AWB?

[Mr Paterson]

I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by telling him that I do not have an estate, and that I do not have any direct employees who take the agricultural wage.

I shall take up my case again. In addition, I want to give businesses the tools they need to have the confidence to invest, adopt and benefit from innovative technologies and farming practices.

[Andrew George]

Those tools will be extremely helpful, especially for research and development, but in relation to today’s debate, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks that agricultural wages and conditions will go up or down as a result of the abolition of the AWB?

[Mr Paterson]

As I said earlier, I am absolutely confident that there is a great future for the industry, and that there will be an increase in demand for labour, which will create pressure to drive wages up. Already, under the AWB, the vast majority of people in the industry are paid well above the minimum wage and well above the AWB minimums.

Another key area in growing the economy is the roll-out of superfast broadband to rural areas, and increasingly wider access to 3G and 4G networks will also make it easier for farm and rural businesses to operate.

[Jim Sheridan]

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). If wages and conditions were to go down, if that were to encourage migrant workers to come to this country to work for the lower wages, and if that were to result in problems in the community, whose fault would that be?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman and I have debated these issues over many years, and we simply do not agree. Would he like to go back to the arrangements under some of the earlier councils? Why did not the Labour Government re-establish the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods Wages Council (Great Britain), for example? Why did they not re-establish the Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower Wages Council, or the Pin, Hook and Eye and Snap Fastener Wages Council? Why did they not re-establish the rubber-proof garment-making industry wages council? This is the last throwback to an era during which these sort of councils did, I am sure, a worthy job, but we now have a free and expanding market and demand for labour in the countryside. To answer his question directly, I am absolutely confident that wages will be well above those currently set by the AWB. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says “If”, but it is not a question of “if”: wages are currently well above those levels.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s confidence in the future of agriculture. As he will know, in Herefordshire we have a thriving agricultural sector, and it will be all the more enhanced by broadband. Does he share my surprise that despite its denunciation of the measure, the Labour party is unwilling to state whether it would restore the Agricultural Wages Board?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who picks up on the earlier question that the shadow Secretary of State singularly failed to answer. On my hon. Friend’s behalf, I pose this question to her: if a Labour Government were to be elected after the next election, would the AWB exist? Will they bring in legislation to re-establish an agricultural wages board?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a direct question. We are two years away from the next election, and I am sure he will be looking forward with great eagerness to our manifesto. We will look at all measures that stop the public sector, the taxpayer, subsidising poverty wages, wherever they occur in our economy.

[Mr Paterson]

I think my hon. Friend will take that as a no.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I give way to my esteemed predecessor.

[Margaret Beckett]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has now asserted more than once, as has his predecessor, that the outcome will be to improve the wages and conditions of agricultural workers. In that case, will he tell us where the savings his Department identifies will come from?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that question. There are modest administrative savings from the running of this organisation. Labour Members concentrate on the impact assessment, which makes it clear that we have a dynamic market, stating:

“Current wage levels are generally above the AWO minima & are underpinned by the National Minimum Wage.”

On page 3, it says:

“Government intervention is no longer necessary because…it is considered that there is no market failure in the agricultural labour market such that workers require protection which is over and above other statutory terms and conditions and wider employment legislation applying to all workers.”

Let me pick up my thread again. I am confident that we have a thriving sector with demand for labour, which will push wages up, not down. I have touched on the farming regulation task force, which will remove a whole range of regulatory burdens from farm businesses. In fact, since 2011, we have removed £13 of compliance costs for every pound added. There will be 12,000 fewer dairy inspections a year.

The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will complement and supplement this work. That is why I find the position of the Opposition Front-Bench team so disappointing. Agriculture is now the only sector of the economy to retain a separate statutory wages regime. There is no rationale for treating agriculture any differently from other sectors. More than 900,000 businesses in England and Wales are micro-businesses that employ between one and nine people. The vast majority of those cover sectors other than farming and do not require an independent body to set employment terms and conditions, so there is no reason why it is still necessary for farm businesses.

It was in fact the last Labour Government who set up a single national minimum wage, and whose Minister, the noble Lord Falconer argued that

“the Government”—

namely the Labour Government—

“do not believe that a multitude of regional, sectoral or other minimum wages is the right approach. It is neither sensible nor justifiable intellectually.”—(Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1240.)

Agriculture has moved on significantly from when the current wages board was established 65 years ago under the Attlee Government. It is now a global business and the price of agricultural commodities is determined by international supply and demand. British farmers have to compete not only with each other, but with farmers overseas in order to sell both here and in international markets.

The industry has become highly scientific and mechanised, with developments in plant and animal breeding, improved fertilizers and pesticides, and other scientific and technological advances. Workers in the industry need to be highly skilled and specialised. Modern farm businesses are no longer confined just to agriculture. Around a quarter of farms have now diversified into non-agricultural activities, such as rural tourism, retail and sporting activities. Rural tourism alone is worth £33 billion to the economy.

The agricultural wages order takes no account of the changes within agriculture, but imposes an inflexible structure, which is no longer appropriate for the varied and diverse businesses within the industry. This is an industry whose processes, structures and products would be barely recognisable to those drafting or debating the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.

Many farm businesses are faced with the burden of having to administer both the agricultural minimum wage regime and the national minimum wage regime. Employers have to decide whether or not a worker’s activity is covered by the provisions of the agricultural wages order or by general employment legislation. In some cases, there are grey areas as to whether or not work is covered by the agricultural minimum wage or the national minimum wage. For example, packing of salad and vegetable produce grown on farm would normally be covered by the agricultural minimum wage, whereas packing of produce bought in from other farms is not.

Abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will allow agriculture to compete on a level playing field with all other sectors of the economy, with all employees treated equally and all underpinned by the national minimum wage and other statutory provisions. Such an approach was championed by the last Government. Speaking in the Committee stage of the National Minimum Wage Bill, the noble Lord Falconer argued:

“a single national minimum wage is a fundamental principle of the Bill. A single rate is easier to understand and fairer and easier to enforce...I believe that there is a great virtue in simplicity. The simpler we can make the provision, the simpler and more effective the Bill will be. People will know what their rights are. There will be no difficulty in understanding their minimum wage entitlement; and there will be no over-complexity, which might lessen the effect of the Bill.”—(Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1240.)

It is that over-complexity and bureaucracy, as represented by the Agricultural Wages Board, that we are seeking to remove. This will improve the industry’s competitiveness to produce for both domestic and export markets. About 40% of our fresh vegetables and 90% of our fresh fruit are imported, so there are plenty of opportunities for domestic growers to improve their share of the market. Abolition will remove outdated and prescriptive regulations that hamper the ability of industry to offer flexible modern employment packages, such as the payment of annual salaries.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Is the Secretary of State saying that enhanced statutory sick pay is an outdated term and condition for farm workers, who have now had it removed due to the abolition of the AWB? Is he really saying that?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. All the existing conditions continue.

As I say, abolition will remove outdated and prescriptive regulations that hamper the ability of industry to offer flexible modern employment packages, such as the payment of annual salaries. It will simplify employment legislation in the sector, provide transparency and make it easier to recruit workers. In the absence of the board, farmers and workers will be able to agree employment terms and conditions that suit the requirements of the farming sector and the particular circumstances of individuals.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State will answer a question that was asked many times but never answered when the Public Bodies Act 2011 was in Committee. Did the Government consider modernising the board rather than abolishing it?

[Mr Paterson]

All sorts of options were considered, but we concluded that the answer was to abolish the board, thus bringing agriculture into line with every other employment sector in the country.

I fully understand the concern about the impact on workers’ wages and terms and conditions as they adjust to the level playing field and move from being set by a system of statutory wage fixing to being set by the market. However, the figures that the hon. Member for Wakefield and Unite have been using have been cherry-picked from the impact assessment and are based on the worst possible scenario, namely a reduction in the wages of every single worker in the agricultural sector. Anyone with any understanding of the farming industry, or the market, knows that that simply will not happen.

The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will not

“lead to a race to the bottom on wages in rural areas”

or “impoverish rural workers”, as the motion suggests. It will give farmers and workers the same flexibility to agree terms and conditions as is given to employers and workers in all other sectors of the economy, while also securing the same levels of protection. Most workers already have terms and conditions over and above those in the agricultural wages order, and as contracts are already in place, their wages should not be affected. In 2010, the basic pay of full-time permanent workers was 12% above the AWB minimum for their grade, and non-permanent grade 1 and 2 workers were paid 4% above the AWB minimum for their grade. More than two thirds of permanent employees aged over 21 earn above the agricultural wage minimum at grade 1, and more than half do so at grade 6.

The National Farmers Union has described the abolition of the AWB as “a progressive reform”, which is something in which the Labour party used to believe. The “bottom up” takeover of the party by the trade unions seems to be almost complete.

I can reassure the House that agricultural workers who have existing contracts at the time of abolition will continue to retain rights to pay at the appropriate grade level, along with the other terms and conditions in the current agricultural wages order. For the avoidance of any doubt, we intend to provide for that in legislation. Employers will not be able unilaterally to alter terms and conditions for an existing worker without legal consequences. New workers coming into the industry will be protected by the national minimum wage and by wider employment legislation.

The hon. Lady has described the national minimum wage as

“one of the Labour Government’s greatest achievements.”

Why should we not let agricultural workers benefit from that achievement? The national minimum wage provides sufficient protection for 99.5% cent of the work force, including those who operate factory machinery, those who drive heavy vehicles, and those who care for the sick, the elderly or children. There is no reason why it should not also provide sufficient protection for agricultural workers.

[Margaret Beckett]

The Secretary of State has repeatedly mentioned the national minimum wage and the fact that it was introduced by the last Labour Government. Let me say to him, as the former Secretary of State who introduced the national minimum wage legislation, that it was no accident that when we introduced that legislation—which was, of course, opposed by both the parties who are now in government—we did not abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, precisely because we recognised the particular vulnerabilities of agricultural workers.

[Mr Paterson]

In October this year, the Government will raise the national minimum wage by 12p an hour to £6.31. [Interruption.] Let me respond to the chunterings of the shadow Secretary of State by pointing out that that is 10p above the lowest band rate set by the Agricultural Wages Board. Agricultural workers supplied by a labour provider will continue to have the added protection of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We will also make changes to the working time regulations by means of secondary legislation in order fully to align the treatment of agricultural workers with those in other sectors.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the Secretary of State promise that if the wages and terms and conditions of agricultural workers start to decline after the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, he will reinstate the board?

[Mr Paterson]

I cannot promise anything. It is up to individual employers. What I do know is that employers throughout the country are crying out for good staff. Finding a good cowman is like finding hens’ teeth, and a really skilled driver of a modern piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of pounds is someone an employer will really hang on to.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I have already answered the hon. Lady’s question. She takes a completely black view of the economy, but this is an expanding sector that demands skilled people.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I am going to press on. Other Members want to speak.

I believe that agriculture needs to encourage new and young workers to come into the industry. Evidence suggests that the skills shortage in agriculture will be greater in the years between now and 2020 than in other sectors of the economy. The agricultural work force is also ageing: 55% are over 45, which, again, is a higher figure than is found in other sectors of the economy. Under the new arrangements, market drivers will ensure that wages remain competitive. Farmers will need to offer competitive employment packages and career opportunities at all levels to recruit and retain workers to meet their business needs.

Of course, we recognise the need to ensure a smooth transition for agricultural workers and employers to the new arrangements. Subject to parliamentary approval for the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, we intend to invite industry representatives to a meeting to explore whether there is scope for future informal, voluntary industry engagement between employers and workers. DEFRA also supports a review of the agricultural skill levels used in the agricultural wages order, which will contribute to the broader work of the industry AgriSkills Forum. We will ensure that written guidance and information is available for workers and employers to help them understand the changes and what they mean for them.

The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will allow the industry to modernise while ensuring that agricultural workers have the same levels of protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy. It will ensure a vibrant and sustainable future for agriculture and will have benefits for those who work in the industry, as well as the wider rural economy.

The motion seems to look upon the UK agriculture industry as though it is still powered by beer, sandwiches and steam, when in fact it is reliant on cutting-edge technology, machinery and science. The Government wish to equip the agriculture sector for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. The Labour party and its union backers do not. We will vote against the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (Agenda)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Written Statements

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

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 22 April in Luxembourg. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for natural environment, water and rural affairs, the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will be representing the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP and Alun Davies AM will also attend.

On agriculture, the presidency will report to the Council on progress in the common agriculture policy (CAP) trilogue negotiations between the European Council, Parliament and Commission.

The fisheries items will follow with an orientation debate on the reform of the common fisheries policy, a presidency progress report on the negotiations relating to the common organisation of the markets for fisheries and aquaculture products dossier and a Commission presentation on an action plan for reducing the incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. Spain has also requested an AOB item on the state of play of fishery protocols with Morocco and Mauritania.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 18 and 19 March in Brussels. Richard Lochhead MSP and Michelle O’Neil MLA also attended.

The main business of the Council was to agree Council’s position on the four regulations which set out the rules for the common agricultural policy (CAP) over the 2014-20 financial period; and agreement was reached on this late on Tuesday evening.

I am pleased to report that many of the key negotiating objectives for the UK were secured. I worked closely with all the devolved Administrations, and as a result we successfully secured key changes to address concerns for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on issues such as internal convergence—the rules governing the move from historically based to area-based payments for those regions which have not already achieved that transition—and the designation of areas of natural constraint; and in particular, a change which was designed to clarify that implementation decisions on all aspects of the CAP can be taken at regional level. We will continue to represent the interests of the whole of the UK throughout the continuing discussions on the legislation, and in the negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament.

I made it clear that the Commission’s proposed “greening” of the CAP, which will involve part of the subsidy envelope being paid on the basis of compliance with environmental measures, should be delivered through a simple system, to achieve environmental benefits without imposing unnecessary costs on farmers, and to secure value for taxpayers. Council agreed to include an option for member states to design their own certification scheme to deliver the Commission’s “greening” outcomes, which has the potential to simplify implementation significantly, for both farm business and the paying agency.

I was disappointed that the majority of member states were content to allow farmers to be paid twice under two different budgets for delivering the same environmental benefit; but compromises were necessary, and this now forms part of the position. I made it clear that I shared the European Parliament’s opposition to this approach.

Although several member states wanted to extend sugar beet quotas to 2020, I worked with other member states to persuade the Council to agree that they will end in 2017. I am disappointed that they will continue beyond the date previously set for them to end but we have achieved a compromise and fought off calls for the end to be in 2020. The result is that sugar beet quotas will finally be scrapped benefiting consumers and our food processing industries. It is also important that we ensure availability of cane sugar supplies to allow cane refineries to compete on an equal footing; and I am determined to work with the Commission to persuade them to ensure fair treatment for cane sugar refiners.

The Council concluded that the ceiling for coupled payments in each member State—effectively, the proportion of their CAP subsidy envelope which can be linked to production—should increase from that proposed by the Commission. Under the proposals, member states, including the UK, which have made the most progress in decoupling payments, will be allowed to pay up to 7% of their direct payment budget as coupled payments. The remaining member states will be allowed up to 12%. I was disappointed that the Council proposed that coupled payments continue, and that different levels of flexibility should be allowed to different member states, but the agreement is a clear improvement on the European Parliament’s proposal for 15% or even 18%.

The presidency had mistakenly removed from its proposed compromise on the rural development regulation, wording which is relevant to the calculation of a portion of the UK’s rebate. I made it clear that it was essential for this mistake to be corrected, and the presidency ensured that it was corrected in the compromise further changes tabled on the second day. Following objections from a few member states, the presidency maintained the text with the necessary wording, but put the article in square brackets and referred it for resolution in the framework of the Council deliberation on the EU own resource decision. However, at my insistence they also made it clear that this issue needed to be resolved before the rural development regulation could be agreed.

I and other Ministers successfully argued against pressure from some member states to extend the use of market intervention. Reducing market intervention has helped to keep Europe on the path towards a more competitive farming sector, with less of a distorting impact of subsidy.

Under any other business, I raised the issue of the European Commission’s proposed action on neonicotinoids. A total of 11 member states supported my call for the Commission to use all the latest scientific evidence, before any final decisions were taken; in particular I asked the Commission to ensure that any decision was taken in the light of field studies into effects on bee populations. The protection of bees is vital; but action should be considered, proportionate and science-led. I promised to deliver the results of our field studies to the Commission and other member states by the week commencing 25 March 2013.

Also under any other business, the Netherlands presented a paper on trade difficulties with Russia who planned to ban the import of plants from the EU from 1 June. They were supported by other member states and called on the Commission to provide the phytosanitary information Russia requested. I echoed this call, as seed potato exports to Russia are important for Scotland. The Commission acknowledged the situation and indicated that it would raise the issue with the Russians.

Horsemeat Fraud

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 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 4 March 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, on the latest results from the testing of beef products for the presence of horsemeat.

In addition to the results of 5,430 industry tests reported to the House on 4 March 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, the Food Standards Agency has received further results from the UK-wide authenticity survey of beef products. The survey is of beef products on sale at a range of retail and catering outlets, with samples being collected by local authority enforcement officers across the UK. Public analysts are testing these products for both horse and pig DNA. While the majority of testing has been completed, results of some analysis are still awaited.

A total of 364 samples have been taken in the first two phases of this survey, including beef burgers, beef meatballs, minced beef, beef ready meals and tinned beef products. Two products have been identified which did not meet the sampling and analytical criteria, giving 362 samples on which the Food Standards Agency will be reporting. Results for five samples are in dispute. Where results are disputed, a retained portion of the food sample may be sent for further, independent analysis.

Of the 357 samples for which analysis has been completed, all but five were clear of both horse and pig DNA at the 1% reporting limit. Two samples contained over 1% horse DNA and three samples contained over 1% pig DNA. All these products have been withdrawn from sale and named on the Food Standards Agency website.

There have been no positive tests to date for the presence of bute in any of the UK food samples found to contain horse DNA.

The Food Standards Agency met representatives of the food industry on 14 March to discuss future collaboration and reporting of test results. There was general agreement on four areas of future collaboration, for each of which the Food Standards Agency will now draw-up implementation plans. These areas are describing good practice for food businesses in assuring their food chains, with a particular focus on supporting small and medium-sized food businesses; an improved framework for securing and sharing intelligence; developing shared priorities for future food authenticity work; and creating a repository for sharing data and information.

Food industry representatives also agreed to continue to provide data on their ongoing tests for horse DNA in processed beef products, with identification of individual products testing positive above the 1% reporting limit. The Food Standards Agency will next publish a summary of this information in early June, and will continue to report individual products testing positive above the 1% reporting limit as soon as they are confirmed by the food industry.

Although in the short-term our priority has been to focus on the deliberate substitution of beef with horse, this does not mean that we have ignored the possibility of beef products containing undeclared pork or pig DNA. Consumers have a right to expect that all the food they are eating is correctly described.

I recognise that even trace levels of pork contamination, below the 1% threshold, are unacceptable to some faith communities. Where a product is labelled as Halal and is found to contain traces of horse or pig DNA, the relevant local authority will investigate each case and take steps to ensure that consumers are informed.

It remains the responsibility of all food businesses (including processors, catering suppliers and retailers) to ensure that the food they sell is what it says it is on the label, and Kosher and Halal certification bodies have a part to play in this. Any claims on a product certified by a certification body must be accurate. It is for the certification body to set out the standards which a certified product must meet, and for that body to work with food businesses to ensure those standards are adhered to.

On 14 March senior officials from DEFRA, Food Standards Agency, DCLG and the Laboratory for the Government Chemist met with certifying organisations to discuss the Government’s testing programme. The main focus was the testing programme for detecting horse and pig DNA in beef products. They also discussed research being undertaken on detection levels and cross-contamination thresholds.

Investigations continue at a number of sites across the UK. City of London police is the co-ordinating Police Authority for these investigations. At a European-level the Food Standards Agency continues to work closely with the Commission and other member states, sharing information via the rapid alert system for food and feed.

We will be reporting the UK’s contribution to the Europe-wide programme of testing to the European Commission in advance of the deadline of 15 April.

I will continue to keep the House informed.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Written Statements

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

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 18 and Tuesday 19 March in Brussels. I will be representing the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA will also attend.

The two-day meeting will concentrate on the CAP reform package. Negotiations will centre on the four regulations that make up the package. The Irish presidency is seeking to agree a mandate on the CAP reform package at this Council to enable it to start negotiations with the European Parliament. If this can be achieved it will pave the way for a full political agreement in June.

There is one item under any other business regarding a Dutch request to discuss EU trade in plants with Russia.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 25 and 26 February in Brussels covering agricultural issues. I was accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responsible for the natural environment, water and rural affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who spoke on fisheries issues. Alun Davies AM, Richard Lochhead MSP and Michelle O’Neil MLA also attended.

This statement updates Parliament on the outcome of discussions of all agenda items at the February Council with the exception of the AOB point on the mislabelling of beef products. I reported on this item in my written parliamentary statement of 27 February, Official Report, column 26WS.

Agriculture—CAP Reform—Basic Payment

Council began with a range of views on its revised text on the CAP basic payment. On the main issue of internal convergence, those member states who have long opposed the move to full convergence of payment levels within a member state or region (i.e. moving from a system based on historical payments to one using area payments), welcomed the revised text and its lower level of ambition. The UK along with some other member states supported strong Commission calls for a more ambitious proposal. I argued that full internal convergence was required, although I did welcome the extra flexibility the text granted to member states about how they reached that point.

Member states agreed with the proposal that they could scale back entitlements for some claimants if there would be a large increase in entitlements across the member state. The proposed redistributive payment also received support, although some queried its complexity. Most new member states continued to push for continuation of the single area payment scheme (SAPS).The presidency acknowledged this as an issue to which the Council would need to return.

CAP Reform—Transparency of CAP Beneficiaries Data

The Council confirmed broad support for the Commission’s proposals on publication of CAP beneficiaries’ data, above a set threshold. The UK and some other member states argued that we should go further by publishing names and receipts of all CAP beneficiaries, without exempting small farmers. Others opposed the Commission’s proposals on the grounds that they were not clearly in line with the recent ECJ ruling, or that publication of names was unnecessary to meet the objectives of public control and transparency. While views on whether a threshold was required and at what level it might be set differed the presidency felt able to conclude that there was sufficient political support for the Commission proposals.

AOB—European Protein Strategy

Austria presented a paper calling for co-ordinated support for EU protein crop producers. They called for a mechanism to support research and information sharing, but also for protein crops to be eligible for cultivation on environmental focus areas as part of CAP reform. This received support from a significant number of member states. The UK called for a WTO-compliant approach, noting that there was already a sophisticated market for protein crops; and that reform was meant to move away from coupled support. There was therefore no need for specific EU support.

Fisheries

Fisheries business at this Council consisted of an update on negotiations on the EU-Morocco fisheries partnership agreement and a substantive negotiation on outstanding elements of CFP reform.

The Commission gave an update on discussions with Morocco over a new protocol to the EU-Morocco fisheries partnership agreement. Some member states were pressing for a swift agreement while others, including the UK, emphasised the importance of a good deal which safeguarded value for money and sufficiently addressed the needs of Western Sahara.

With regard to reform of the CFP, Council revisited the general approach agreed in June 2012 to finalise the outstanding details left undecided. The discussion focused primarily on measures to eliminate discards through landing obligations, or “discard bans” (in articles 15 and 16), although it also touched on integration of the CFP with environmental obligations (article 12).

The Irish presidency tabled a number of proposals, including amendments to the deadlines for the introduction of landing obligations, increased “de minimis” exemptions, new species-based exemptions, and proposals for mandatory swapping of quota between member states.

Firm deadlines for the introduction of landing obligations were agreed, although some deadlines were moved back one year from what had been proposed. Despite pressure from a significant bloc of member states to water down the detailed discards provisions and to expand the flexibilities available, the principles of progressively implemented landing obligations across all quota species remain intact.

The final package maintained de minimis provisions, but blanket species-based exemptions that risked damaging the credibility of the ban were ultimately rejected. Proposals that would have required member states to swap away a certain percentage of their quota were also removed from the package.

The Council position now incorporates these provisions on discards, alongside the other measures agreed in the general approach, for example on fishing at sustainable levels, and processes to deliver more regionalised decision making. The final package will be agreed between Council and the European Parliament, with a process of “trilogue” discussions expected to begin shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

12. What recent discussions he has had on the adulteration of food in the UK.

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

On 25 and 27 February I updated the House on the discussions I have had on the adulteration of food in the UK with the food industry and at a European level. I continue to have regular update discussions with the Food Standards Agency and I shall also be meeting the food industry on a regular basis.

[Andrew Miller]

Obviously, this is not just about adulteration with horsemeat. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that consumers have the right to know everything about the content of food that is sold to them. Will he reassure the House about whether he has done a proper analysis of the capacity of British laboratories to undertake the research necessary to give consumers the confidence that they are entitled to?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and entirely agree that no matter what the price of a product, it must be as marked on the label and as sold. To do otherwise is a fraud on the public. He asks about laboratory capacity. We need only look at what has happened: in an extraordinarily short time in recent weeks, the industry has conducted 5,430 tests that have shown that less than 1% of the products are adulterated.

[Ian Murray]

May I draw the House’s attention to a non-declarable interest as a former employee of the Meat Hygiene Service? It costs approximately £170 to test each slaughtered horse for bute, yet the meat is worth only about £300. The industry has talked a lot about full cost recovery, so will the Minister tell the House when the taxpayer will stop having to pick up the bill for bute testing and how much he estimates the total bill will be?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is very relevant. We have cauterised the problem of bute getting into the food chain, as no horse carcase can enter the food chain until it has tested negative for bute, but he is right to raise that question. This is a holding position. I had a meeting with senior members of the horse industry recently because the horse passport scheme that we inherited is unsatisfactory. We will make proposals on that in due course.

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

The Food Standards Agency has a big role to play in this regard and I believe that it has failed to step up to the plate. Following the capability review that was completed in January and the work being undertaken by the National Audit Office, when might the Government be minded to make proposals to reform the FSA?

[Mr Paterson]

I have to remind my hon. Friend and the House that this is an overall European competence. Under regulation 178/2002 we must work within the European regime, and having an independent agency is very much part of that. I pay tribute to the work that the agency has conducted under great pressure in recent weeks, working very closely with the industry and conducting an extraordinarily large number of tests—5,430, as I said. Once we have seen where this criminal conspiracy began and once we have found the criminals—I remind the House that this is an international problem, with 23 countries involved—we will begin to look at the lessons learned. I am clear that within this regime we must have more testing of product and more random testing of finished product.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that we can learn from this is to have much better, honest labelling and to know exactly where our processed meat product comes from and that it is produced to good farm-assured standards such as the red tractor scheme in this country?

[Mr Paterson]

I agree that clearer labelling could help, but we are up against a criminal conspiracy and I think the criminals would have got through. I had a constructive meeting with the French, German, Austrian and Finnish Ministers in Brussels last week, and we are asking the European Commission to accelerate its report on the labelling and marking of the country of origin.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

On 22 February Sodexo announced that it had found horsemeat in a beef product and withdrew meat from schools in Gloucestershire, Southampton and Leicestershire and the armed forces. Sodexo has refused publicly to name the product, the level of horse adulteration or the meat company which supplied it, thereby preventing other organisations from knowing whether their supplies are at risk. The Government know the name of that meat supplier. Will the Secretary of State now name that company so that the rest of the public sector can check its supplies?

[Mr Paterson]

I discussed this issue yesterday with the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, who is completely satisfied that the information required from Sodexo has been supplied. The hon. Lady must understand that there is an investigation going on and in some of these cases it might lead to criminal prosecution. [Interruption.] No, the FSA is clear that it must be guarded about what information can be revealed in case the investigations are impinged upon.

[Mary Creagh]

I find that answer extraordinary. The Secretary of State has a duty to tell the public what he knows and in every other case where supermarkets and other suppliers have found adulterated meat products, their suppliers have been named. How is the public sector supposed to check?

I want to move on to a letter from John Young, a former manager at the Meat Hygiene Service, who sent this letter from High Peak Meat Exports to DEFRA in April 2011. It warned the Government that bute-contaminated horsemeat could illegally enter the human food chain because of failures with the horse passport system, which I have raised in the House before. On 17 February the Secretary of State ordered an urgent investigation into those claims. What has that investigation found, and has he discovered why his Government colleagues ignored that warning?

[Mr Paterson]

To clarify the previous answer, Sodexo made it clear to all its customers which products there was a problem with. It has withdrawn them all but in the case of an investigation which might grow criminal, it would not be sensible to reveal names of suppliers. This is a criminal conspiracy which covers 23 different countries, and it does not help the police to arrive at prosecutions if information is revealed.

On horse passports, we are clear that we have fixed the problem of bute getting into the food chain. No carcases will get into the food chain until they have tested negative for bute. That is absolutely clear, and we are clear that the horse passport regime which we inherited from the hon. Lady’s party needs reforming, and we will do that in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

We are much obliged to the Secretary of State.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the adulteration of food.

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

I have been in regular contact with Ministers in the devolved Administrations to discuss the issue. Ministers from Scotland and Wales attended my meeting with the food industry on 18 February, where we made it clear that the adulteration of food is unacceptable and that consumers have to be the top priority. I most recently met Ministers in all the devolved Administrations at a pre-Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 25 February and the Welsh Minister briefly on Monday. I am grateful for their support.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Scotland has a high-quality food industry and it is important that its reputation is maintained. What steps is the Minister taking, along with the devolved Administrations, to look at the prevention of adulteration in areas other than those that we have seen so far? Clearly, we cannot predict criminality but we should make sure that we act proactively as far as possible.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be proud of the quality of Scottish products, as we are, because of the high quality of the raw materials, their traceability and the thoroughness of our production systems. That is why this case must be sorted out. We cannot allow a small number of criminals to do huge damage to a key industry. We are discussing the issue of other types of adulteration with the FSA. That is particularly important to some minorities, so we will be looking to test for pork adulteration.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Select Committee, has been clear that the Government were caught flat-footed by the horsemeat scandal. In that case, how would the Secretary of State describe the Scottish Government’s response, given that they picked up the phone nearly a week after Asda began clearing its shelves?

[Mr Paterson]

I am not responsible for the Scottish Government. All I will say is that I would like to thank the Scottish Minister and the Welsh Minister for their steadfast support. They came down to the last big meeting I held with industry leaders, and we were all completely united on the need to sort out this criminal conspiracy in order to clear the name of British food making. We want to get exporting and pushing on to expand the industry. We will not have it held back by criminal activity.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Cross-contamination by horsemeat in every part of the United Kingdom could be stopped if we prevented the killing of horses in multi-species abattoirs. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the trade in horsemeat is fairly revolting and that Britain would be a better place if we had none of it at all? Let us kill the horsemeat trade altogether and we will not have to worry about contamination.

[Mr Paterson]

A small number of horses—about 9,000—are slaughtered every year in this country. I am not sure that abattoirs would be viable if they concentrated only on one species, but it is an idea that I would like to discuss with my hon. Friend and perhaps take further.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his Welsh and Scottish counterparts the fact that many of our constituents find this issue very distasteful, not only because of the thought of eating horsemeat but because of the certain knowledge that horses will be transported and slaughtered in appalling circumstances by shadowy people in those 23 countries?

[Mr Paterson]

I have discussed the issue with Commissioner Borg and other Ministers, because there is a significant trade in horses across the continent of Europe. My hon. Friend and his constituents are absolutely right: if they buy a product that is sold as processed beef, regardless of price, it should be processed beef. Any adulteration with any other material is a conspiracy to defraud the public, and we are determined to get to the bottom of it.

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

15. The export of Scotch beef and Scotch beef-based food products is vital for the manufacturing base in the Scottish economy. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Scottish Government to ensure that producers and consumers can have confidence in the products they buy?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State attended the 100th anniversary celebrations of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I have discussed the matter with Minster Lochhead. We both agree that we have a job to do, working closely with the industry, to promote strict traceability and production systems. I was interested to note that at the NFU conference last week in Birmingham that people really had their tails up because there is now an opportunity, with the public being so interested in the supply chain, to stress how good our industry is and how reliable our products are.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had on flood insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

The priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are to grow the rural economy, improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health. As well as handling issues such as the adulteration of processed beef products, we continue to seek to put farming on a sustainable footing for the future. This includes working towards a common agricultural policy settlement that will enable farmers to respond to the needs of the market, while delivering valuable environmental benefits and boosting potential for exports. As I outlined at last week’s National Farmers Union conference, both of these things will enable farmers to capitalise on the growing domestic and global demand for high-quality UK produce. At every opportunity we will champion our farmers and their rigorous standards of production and traceability.

[Stephen Timms]

In a series of decisions, the European Commission has unbalanced the previous level playing field in the European sugar market between beet processors and cane refiners. As a result, we have very high prices for sugar, super profits for beet processors and a threat to the viability of cane refining in Europe. Will the Minister make sure that the forthcoming changes to the CAP get us back to a level playing field?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely correct. At present, the quota regime is due to end in 2015 and he is right that sugar prices are 35% higher than world prices, which is 1% on the cost of the average shopping basket. We are clear that we want the quota regime to go. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that, at every opportunity when this issue is raised, I remember the need to defend the interests of cane importers and to make sure that the duty regime is fair to them.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T3. Will Ministers update us on where we are with dangerous dogs legislation, given the continued prevalence of attacks and, indeed, organised dog fighting?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T5. Last week the Secretary of State said that he was keen to delay European Union proposals to protect essential pollinators from neonicotinoids until new British field data were available. At the very same time, his own chief scientist was telling members of the Environmental Audit Committee that those same trials had been deeply compromised. When will the Secretary of State stop prevaricating and implement a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids without further delay?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the position clear. There have been a number of reports based on laboratory data. I have raised the issue with Minister Coveney, who has the presidency of the European Union, and had a meeting with Commissioner Borg about it only last week. We have asked them to wait until the data from our field trials have been analysed. We are fully aware of the strength of feeling that the hon. Lady represents, but there are also people who believe that these materials are not damaging. What is absolutely critical is that we do the right thing for bees, because they play such a fundamental role. There is no point in removing one product if it does not actually hurt bees. What we really need to do is look at how we can promote bee health, because it is so important to all plant life.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T7. Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday was an important day in the political calendar, as it was national salad day, and that, in my constituency of Harlow and the surrounding villages of Roydon and Nazeing, we have the highest concentration of cucumber and pepper growers across the United Kingdom? Will the Government place more weight on food production in the planning system to help the Lee valley growers and glasshouse industry in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

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

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

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

Horsemeat Fraud

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 4th March 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 25 February, 2013, Official Report, column 5WS, on the latest results from the food industry programme of tests of beef products for the presence of horsemeat.

The vast majority of results from food retailers, wholesalers, and caterers are now in. Including previous weeks’ testing, a total of 5,430 test results of the most vulnerable processed beef products had been reported to the Food Standards Agency by Friday 1 March. They continue to show that over 99% of processed beef products are what they say they are on the label.

Last Friday, 1 March, the Food Standards Agency published a third set of results from the programme of product testing being carried out by food businesses. These are included in the table alongside results reported to the House previously—25 February 2013, Official Report, column 5WS . This included a further 1,797 results since the 22 February report, in which a further four products were confirmed as containing horse DNA. These four products are covered by 10 test results that show horse DNA at or above the 1% threshold. All were named and withdrawn from sale.

Agricultural Council (Horsemeat Fraud)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Written Statements

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

I represented the UK at the first day of the 25 and 26 February Agriculture and Fisheries Council. Ministers from the devolved Administrations were also present. I also had an individual discussion with Commissioner Borg. I would like to update the House on the Council discussion on horsemeat fraud in advance of the normal report on the rest of the Council business.

The Council had a wide-ranging discussion, following an update from the Irish presidency which summarised action to date, including the informal meeting of some agriculture Ministers which I attended on 13 February and the new EU-wide programme of testing of beef products for horse DNA and testing of horsemeat for phenylbutazone agreed on 15 February.

Member states endorsed EU-wide action to address the issue through the testing programme and rapid sharing of information on wrongdoing. There was also widespread recognition that this incident arose as a result of fraudulent practices outside existing EU legislation. The Commissioner reminded member states that they have responsibility for official controls in the food chain and food businesses have primary responsibility for compliance.

I outlined the urgent action the UK Government have taken to investigate the situation in the UK and noted that arrests have been made and investigations continue. I noted that the horsemeat fraud was a Europe-wide problem and urged all member states to share information rapidly in support of co-ordinated activity, including with Europol where appropriate in the case of active criminal investigations.

I drew attention to the scale of product testing by food businesses in the UK, with over 3,500 processed beef products having been tested by 22 February representing over 90% of retailers’ own products and over 80% of products supplied by manufacturers, caterers and wholesalers, of which over 99% contained no horse DNA at or above 1%. I welcomed the EU-wide testing programme and the fact that it covers testing for “bute” in horsemeat for human consumption. I drew attention to our consideration of ways of improving the current horse passport system. I also drew attention to the need to look further at the issues of horsemeat imports from outside the EU and asked the Commission for more information on horse movements within the EU. I made clear I saw a need for the testing programme to extend for two months beyond the initial one month. I also made clear that while the testing programme is essential to give consumers a clear picture of the extent of the problem, it is food businesses which have the primary responsibility for verifying that food is of the right quality and is correctly labelled.

I pressed the Commission, along with a number of other member states, to accelerate the production and publication of its report on extending mandatory country of origin labelling to meat in processed products and asked that this include a proper impact assessment so that we have evidence on the practicality and cost of extending mandatory origin labelling in this way and can avoid any unintended consequences.

I made clear that as this is a Europe-wide problem, while we would want to learn the lessons from this episode in the UK once the immediate incidents have been resolved, there needs to be a lessons learned exercise at European level.

The Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs undertook to try and speed up the report on mandatory origin labelling of meat in processed products but did not commit to a specific time scale. The Commission would prepare an overview report of member state official controls on hygiene, veterinary drugs and horse passports.

The presidency concluded that many member states had called on the Commission to speed up delivery of the origin labelling report. I asked for this subject to be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Agriculture Council on 18 and 19 March.

Bovine TB

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Written Statements

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

In October, I announced that the two badger control pilots that had been due to go ahead last autumn were being postponed at the National Farmers Union’s request. These pilots are part of the Government’s science-led and carefully managed policy to allow controlled culling of badgers, carried out by groups of farmers and landowners, to tackle TB in cattle. The policy is being piloted in two areas to test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting.

Prior to the decision to postpone the pilots, licences were issued to the companies carrying out the culls in the two pilot areas in west Gloucestershire and west Somerset. Today, Natural England has formally written to the two companies confirming the final conditions in these licences have been met, meaning that culling can go ahead there later this year. This demonstrates the commitment of all organisations involved to the successful delivery of the pilots in these two areas.

At the same time, an area in Dorset will be prepared as a reserve. This is a sensible contingency in the event that, for any reason, one of the existing licensed areas is unable to proceed.

I know that there is great strength of feeling on badger culling, but I also know that we need to take action now before the situation deteriorates even further. We need to tackle all transmission routes of TB using all the available tools.