---

Milk Prices

11. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): If she will make a statement on milk prices. [174412]
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1091
 

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The most recent available figure shows that the average UK farm-gate price for milk delivered in March was 18.51p per litre, which is 1.14p per litre higher than last year. That is the highest figure for milk delivered in March since 1999.

Mr. Turner : I thank the Minister for his reply. Farmers in my constituency strive to get 10p a pint for milk, but the housewife in the supermarket has to pay 37p. How successful have the Government been in dealing with rip-off supermarkets and their oligopoly?

Alun Michael: We welcome the Office of Fair Trading decision to undertake a compliance audit of the supermarket code of practice to establish evidence for any further action. Furthermore, the work that has been done demonstrates that changes in farm-gate prices and supermarket prices are reflected one on the other. There was thought to be dissonance between the two, but that does not appear to be the case.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that some milk processors are going out of business at present. The supermarkets' cartel is putting on pressure, so farmers struggle to find someone to buy their milk and are then forced into selling it at a reduced price against the premium that they always had in the past. That is a worry and we need to look into it. The matter is urgent for dairy farmers, especially as they have nowhere else to turn if they produce milk alone.

Alun Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but we are trying to move to a situation where farmers produce what the market requires. In my initial reply, I referred to the work of the OFT, which is considering whether anything needs to be done to ensure that there is a level playing field. I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the available information, especially from the KPMG study on prices and profitability in the British dairy chain, which contains a number of lessons for us to learn in looking at the future of the dairy industry.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Is it not still the case that the entire dairy chain is distorted from beginning to end, so that primary producers and processors are constantly squeezed to the point that there are unsustainable milk prices, which mean that many of them are going out of business? Do we not need if not a stronger code of conduct, one that is properly implemented and properly enforced so that supermarkets do not simply make profits while our dairy industry is being exported?

Alun Michael: I encourage the hon. Gentleman, too, to look at the detailed information about the industry. We have gone to some trouble to ensure that it is available—for example, on fluctuations, a 1p increase in the farm-gate price resulted in an increase of only 0.6p in the retail price of liquid milk, whereas a 1p decrease in farm-gate prices reduced the retail price by 0.7p. Clearly, there are fluctuations in the market and there are pressures, and supermarkets do things in order to try to keep their prices down. That is why the examination
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1092
 
by the OFT, which is based on facts, not fears—although the fears are understandable—is the right way to approach the issue.

Hunting With Dogs

12. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): When she will be in a position to bring forward legislation to ban hunting with dogs. [174413]

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I can only repeat the assurances, which the Government have given consistently and repeatedly, that the issue will be dealt with in the present Parliament.

It must be remembered that the Government did bring forward legislation during the last Session, which was amended in the House of Commons, and that the House of Lords failed to complete its consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Blizzard : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer.

There have been inquiries and endless debates on whether hunting is an essential tool of countryside management, but is not the key to be found on the placards that huntsmen hold up when they go on their demonstrations? The placards say, "Leave country sports alone". Hunting is a sport. It is a cruel sport. It is an unnecessary sport. It is a sport that the people of this country want banned. It is a sport that the House wants banned. May we have a Bill as soon as possible so that we can do just that?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right to point to the revealing nature of the messages on some of the placards. I do not think that such messages did any favour to those who tried to make a case for hunting having a role in, for instance, the control of vermin and so on. I would only point him to the conclusions that I reached and brought before the House as a result of exhaustive inquiries and listening to all sides of the debate. The evidence deserves better attention than the sort of placard to which he refers.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): The Minister again referred to the evidence during his answer to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), and the Minister often professes a great attachment to scientific objectivity and curiosity in matters that relate to hunting with dogs, although his body language and rhetoric sometimes suggest something rather different. I suspect that that criticism could be made of me, of course. The peer group review will be completed soon into the middle way group study into the welfare effects of shooting foxes. May I ask the Minister to pay very careful attention to that peer group review, whatever it says? It may or may not support our study, but may I ask him for an assurance that he will at least look at the peer group review before introducing any further legislation in the House?

Alun Michael: As for body language, the hon. Gentleman is sometimes referred to as enthusiastic and perhaps as over-excited. I think that he will
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1093
 
acknowledge that I have always looked at any evidence that he, the middle way group or, indeed, other organisations have produced, and I have tried to do so objectively and to listen with care where they have evidence that should be treated as a serious contribution to the debate. So, of course I will look at anything that he and his group produce.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Would it shock and surprise my right hon. Friend if I were to tell him that I no longer believe that this Government will ban hunting with dogs? May I remind him—this is why he is being pressed by Labour colleagues—that the Parliament Acts can be used only if a Bill is brought back in this Session? If a Bill is not brought back in this Session, we will not ban hunting with dogs. So why does he not forget about being so delphic and just give us a straight answer to a straight question?

Alun Michael: Nothing that my hon. Friend contributes in the Chamber could shock or dismay me. I assure him that he lost all capacity to have that sort of impact a long time ago. I have given a straight answer to a straight question: the matter will be dealt with in this Parliament. If he wishes to extrapolate from that into the mechanics, I can assure him that I have looked at the implications of the procedures as well, and with great care.

Statutory Management Requirements

14. Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab): What representations she has received in respect of the inspection regime to oversee statutory management requirements. [174415]

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Officials continue to work closely with stakeholders and enforcement bodies to evaluate the current inspection regimes. Stakeholders have been engaged throughout by involvement in bilateral meetings, workshops and the current public consultation on cross-compliance.

Mr. Plaskitt : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but will she confirm whether the new regime, when it is introduced, will be made fully consistent with all the other inspection regimes that are already in place? Will there be full data sharing between them?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is exactly the kind of issue that we are discussing with stakeholders. We are conscious of the fact that, as he will appreciate, the statutory regimes are already the subject of current inspection, but we are anxious to simplify and streamline inspection processes as much as is practicable. We are certainly very mindful of the point that he makes about the need in the future for greater data sharing and greater efficiency. That is something that we are considering in general, with a view to all our regulation, but in particular, of course, in this new field.

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): What mechanisms exist in the Secretary of State's Department to ensure that that regime, or any other inspection regime or
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1094
 
regulatory burden, does not weigh down harder on British business than similar regulatory regimes do in other EU member states?

Margaret Beckett: Quite simply, there are Commission requirements, and they are binding on every member state and apply in particular to that section of the cross-compliance regime. We believe that the changes that we are making will make ours a more efficient and effective regime than perhaps those in some of the other member states.

---