Examination of witness (Questions 660
- 679)
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2000
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY
660. Yes, they definitely are. Finally, in the
context of my suggestion of some kind of a convention or dialogue
with all the certifying bodies at a strategic level, do you think
there is a benefit in bringing the Farm Assurance Scheme together
with certifying bodies so you have one inspection and one set
of standards, thereby avoiding duplication?
(Mr Morley) I think that would bring huge benefits,
although not easy to do I suspect. There has been a big growth
in farm assurance schemes, different ones, not necessarily related
to organic production. I am a great enthusiast of farm assurance
schemes. I think they are a good thing. I think they raise standards.
Also, I think they give our producers a protection because with
increasing competition, increasing globalisation, what we cannot
do in our country is move our standards down because there is
always somebody who will get under them anyway. What we should
be concentrating on is high standards underpinned by quality assurance
schemes, underpinned by proper labelling, good labelling and proper
consumer education so that consumers make informed choices. It
comes back to the point I was making, Chairman. I think that British
producers who are investing in high standards of welfare, quality,
environment, including organic producers, are entitled to a premium.
They are entitled to a premium. The quality assurance schemes
and the validating bodies are part of making sure that they get
that premium.
661. There is potential to bring all this together
so, finally—I know I said "finally" once before
but I mean it now—will you consider in that case for some
time in the next three or four months having strategic certifiers'
standards just to see if there is a basis for interest in this?
(Mr Morley) I am not against the principle of what
you are saying. The difficulty for the Government, of course,
is that we do not have ownership of these schemes.
662. But it could be a voluntary kind of summit?
(Mr Morley) It could be a voluntary summit but it
would have to come from the bodies themselves. In some ways it
is an issue for them. If the different groups and assurance schemes
and validating bodies want to do that then from the Government
point of view we would be only too pleased to see that and we
would be very happy to co-operate.
663. If they come to you, you would be willing
to co-operate?
(Mr Morley) Absolutely, yes.
Mr Mitchell
664. Can I just come back to the point that
Lembit made. Surely it is simply to sweep the whole lot out of
the way and just have Government's authorisation and inspection
schemes. There would not be the overlap. It is known to the consumer
and the consumer might be able to make a choice between different
standards set by different certification bodies but it is just
a confused mess, they want organic food, they do not want all
the fiddling distinctions. Also, unless you do that, have a common
system, you are going to strangle the industry because it is no
use having higher standards and a holier-than-thou kind of attitude
if they can only be financed by Government spending and by maintenance
groups. Surely you have got to have achievable standards which
can be universally achieved to bring down the price and give it
the competitive edge it now needs?
(Mr Morley) Certainly I agree with the point you make
about the dangers of setting standards which are higher in this
country than anywhere else and, therefore, in effect cutting our
nose off to spite our face, as David said. Of course, the way
that validation works is completely open as part of the UKROFS
review. All options can be considered. I think in defence of the
validating bodies, as I say, by and large they do a good job.
They are well established, they are very cost effective from a
Government point of view, because although we do give some financial
support in terms of the organic helpline and the information service,
we give some financial support to the bodies too but it is limited,
the bodies themselves actually arrange an awful lot of their money
and are self-financing. They are quite cost effective and they
are efficient in terms of how they perform.
665. Do you use that support to persuade them
that they might be being a bit pedantic or even pernickety in
some of the standards?
(Mr Morley) The key is probably UKROFS because, as
I say, when you have a number of different validating bodies,
farmers can choose. If they think one of them is setting unreasonable
standards above the minimum then they do not have to go into that
validating body. The important thing is the standard that UKROFS
set because that is the national standard. The argument about
realism and pragmatism is probably one to have with UKROFS really.
666. Imports will come in at lower standards?
(Mr Morley) Imports will come in at an agreed standard.
Validating organisations can set a higher standard than that if
they choose.
667. Imports will force them—
(Mr Morley) You cannot ignore the impact of imports
which are being produced at a certain minimum standard.
668. How are you, as Government, going to encourage
production of more organic cereal and protein crops to satisfy
the EU organic livestock requirements?
(Mr Morley) I think in all honesty, Chairman, we have
a fair way to go on that sector. It is very difficult to attract
cereal producers into organic production, although the premium
for organic cereal crops is very strong, particularly given the
very low prices of cereal at the present time. The premiums are
very attractive for cereal producers at the moment. The problem
is, of course, they are underpinned by the arable area payments.
To go to organic cereal production really the best method is to
have a mixed farm method and, of course, many cereal farmers over
the years have gone to monoculture and maximised cereals. Therefore,
the cost of converging for them is quite high, not so much in
their losses but the fact they will have to go to rotation. They
will probably also have to have some livestock as well because
of the organic manures and it is a restraint, it is true. We are
not making as much progress on the cereal side as we would like.
669. There have been concerns expressed about
the delays in approval of imports by UKROFS. Now is this implicit
in the situation, for so many countries to assess rather than
it being done on a common European basis, or have you tried to
persuade them to get their finger out and speed things up?
(Mr Morley) It is just the sheer pressure on them
really. As I was saying, Chairman, there are a number of countries
that have EU approval because they have been inspected by the
EU in relation to their organic standards. Therefore, we expect
the validation of those countries. Therefore, we do not have to
validate all their imports because we accept that their validation
bodies are applying the same standards as our validation bodies.
It is the countries which are not included within that list where
you do have to make sure that the organic standards are being
applied. It is important because as the market expands then, of
course, you do have to be very much on guard that people are trying
to slip non-organic products on to the market to gain the benefit
from those premiums. I think the fact that UKROFS has taken some
time about it reassures me because it means that they are looking
at it properly.
670. You have no problems about the effectiveness
of the EU inspection or whether there are preferences given to
some group of countries over other groups of countries?
(Mr Morley) Some groups of countries have that preference
in the sense that they have been inspected by the EU and meet
the EU standards. They have their own systems in place which we
accept are working and are being properly validated. There are
not many, there is a limited number of those. Israel is one of
them which springs to mind. Other countries have to be inspected
properly but they need to be inspected properly. I think the main
delay is demands on staff in UKROFS and, of course, that is one
of the issues we are looking at in the review.
671. Are you satisfied with the current controls
on imports?
(Mr Morley) Yes. I think that the current inspections
are generally acceptable, although, of course, there is always
room for improvement.
672. Given the value of third country imports,
has MAFF encouraged the EU to extend its recognition of the treatment
of EU suppliers?
(Mr Morley) I think we are pretty confident that within
the EU suppliers the standards are being applied properly and
uniformly. Bear in mind, of course, that the bulk of organic produce
is going into the big retail chains. The big retail chains have
their own supply chain auditing and, of course, it will be very
damaging to their reputation if they are importing products which
are claimed to be organic and which are shown not to be organic.
There is that fallback position as well in that there is the independent
market driven checks, apart from the statutory checks and standards
we have put in.
673. Does the EU provide assistance to other
countries to improve their standards so things can be speeded
up?
(Mr Morley) Offhand I am not quite sure whether they
do do that.
Dr Turner
674. Minister, earlier on you were saying that
one of the reasons the public supported organic farming was the
perception that it was a benefit to animal welfare. Returning
to the need for that to be evidence based, I would just like you
to say a little bit about what you base that statement on, given
that we have had people coming to us saying the opposite might
be true and that sometimes the livestock regulations are a threat
to animal health and welfare. There is a conflict of argument
being given to the Committee. What is the research and the evidence
you are using to ensure you are correct and the public are getting
the correct perception that animal welfare is one of the reasons
to support international farming?
(Mr Morley) In some ways it is a question which should
be directed at the validating bodies because of the standards
they set. Farm animals, of course, are protected by a range of
laws and regulations in this country and that applies to organic
farms as well as any other farm. I have looked at some of the
standards being applied. Organic farmers can, of course, use normal
veterinary products when animals have a need for that but, of
course, they have to go through a withdrawal period if they use
veterinary products. The organic farmers and organic sectors that
I have talked to are absolutely adamant that their standards are
very strongly welfare based. They argue they are based on good
veterinary and scientific care and practice. Of course, in relation
to stocking densities, the way that animals are reared, they have
very strict rules in relation to what should be applied in order
to meet the organic standards and the validating standards.
675. Do you think that is why they may be tempted
not to treat the animals, so they actually do not break the rules
and lose the organic premium for the animal?
(Mr Morley) No, I do not think so. I think the key
to all these standards is that the welfare of the animal must
come first. If the animal needs veterinary care and treatment
then it can have it.
676. That might have been true for those who
led the field but surely as it does become more commercial, as
you say it is likely to, is that commercial pressure to actually
protect the premium on the animal not likely to come in front
of the animal welfare? Is there not a need to ensure there is
not a compromise?
(Mr Morley) There is a need to ensure and that is
a job for the validating bodies but, of course, if welfare is
in some way neglected or compromised then it would certainly seriously
affect the premium.
677. One other issue which farmers raised with
us was the concern they had about the future of local abattoirs.
It was quite clear the commercial viability of some farmers depended
upon the fact that they were close to the abattoir they were using.
Do you have concerns yourself about the future of abattoirs and,
if so, what plans do you have to ensure that the needs of the
organic farmer are met?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I do have concerns and I know you
have raised it yourself as a constituency MP in relation to this.
678. I have, yes.
(Mr Morley) There is a very serious issue here about
small slaughter houses and the costs that they face in relation
to enforcement and hygiene control. There is a serious issue of
enforcement and hygiene control and, indeed, we have seen from
the Phillips Report what can happen if you do not take that seriously
and if you put deregulation before consumer protection. We have
to strike that balance between the need to ensure that we have
good controls in all our meat plants, and that includes small
ones as well as large ones, but, yes, there is an issue of small
ones and there is an issue of the fact that we want to have small
slaughter houses within easy reach of regions because there are
regional products, there are organic products. We do recognise
that argument and it has been made very well by the organic sector
and, indeed, others. All I can say to you, Chairman, is that in
the Rural White Paper, where we are considering a range of issues
within the rural economy, small slaughter houses is one of them.
I just suggest you read that when it comes out.
Chairman
679. The Government's response to the Maclean
Report, is that bound up in the Rural White Paper?
(Mr Morley) Yes, it is.
|
