Organic food Production
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Connarty, Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
† Eustice, George (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
† Horwood, Martin (Cheltenham) (LD)
† Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab)
† Leslie, Charlotte (Bristol North West) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Penrose, John (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
† Rees-Mogg, Jacob (North East Somerset) (Con)
† Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con)
† Walker, Mr Robin (Worcester) (Con)
Sarah Petit, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
European Committee A
Tuesday 6 January 2015
[Sir Alan Meale in the Chair]
Organic Food Production
2.30 pm
The Chair: Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the documents to this Committee?
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I would like briefly to describe the background to the documents and to explain why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended that today’s debate should take place.
The EU requirements governing organic food are set out in Council Regulation No. 834/2007, but the Commission says that the aim of document 7956/14 is to go back to core principles, notably by removing certain exemptions and requiring organic agricultural holdings to be managed entirely as such. As the proposals were not due to come into effect until at least July 2017, they were accompanied by document 8194/14—an action plan to encourage a smooth shift to the new framework.
The Commission suggested that the overall impact of the proposals was expected to be positive, but the Government said that they could risk disrupting the organic sector and could be costly in the UK. In view of that and the wider public interest in organic food, the European Scrutiny Committee decided on 30 April 2014 to draw the documents to the attention of the House, but to hold them under scrutiny.
The Committee was subsequently told that the Government’s consultation had in fact identified some “significant” concerns—not least on the part of the devolved Administrations—which were shared by a number of other member states. The Government summarised the situation by saying that the proposal was “largely negative” for the UK, and the Committee therefore decided on 10 September 2014 that the documents should be debated in European Committee A.
I should perhaps add that the Committee subsequently received a letter from the Government saying that the Italian presidency might seek a partial general agreement at the Council on 15 December, but adding that further changes would be necessary before the UK could be fully supportive. The Government nevertheless asked whether the Committee would be prepared to release the documents from scrutiny, and the Chairman of the Committee replied that it could see no reason why the UK should allow itself to be bounced into an agreement or why the scrutiny should be lifted, particularly as the recommended debate would now be held early in the new year. That is the debate that we are now having.
The Government have since written again to say that the presidency decided not to press for a vote in the Council, but instead sought endorsement of a list of political guidelines to steer future work. They add that they accepted the guidelines, while ensuring that the
wording was flexible enough to allow the negotiation of a proposal that would have an overall positive impact on the organic sector. They also say that the Council simply took note of the guidelines and that there was broad support from member states. That is the context in which we are having the debate.The Chair: I call the Minister to make an opening statement.
2.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for the opportunity to debate this important subject. There was a great deal of activity during December on the Commission’s proposal under the Italian presidency, and it is helpful to have an opportunity to update hon. Members on the latest developments.
The organic sector accounts for about 3% of agricultural production in the UK. In its annual report published last summer, the Soil Association estimated that the market grew by 2.8% in 2013 and is now worth £1.79 billion. That is the first growth that we have seen in the organic sector since 2008. It is a welcome development and it augurs well for UK operators looking to take advantage of growing international markets such as China, which is forecast to see a dramatic expansion in organic sales in 2015 to anything up to £5 billion. It is against that backdrop of re-emerging growth in the sector that we need to consider the Commission’s proposal.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I am sorry to intervene so early, but will the Minister clarify whether that is growth in the demand for organic produce or a return to growth in organic production in the UK? My understanding is that certainly in recent years, organic production has fallen off a little, in terms of both numbers of producers and overall production.
The Chair: This part of the process is the statement from the Minister. We will move next to questions and then to the debate, so just continue, Minister.
George Eustice: The existing regulation, 834/2007, has been in place since 2008. There are problems with the current regime. We therefore welcomed the inclusion of this dossier in the Commission’s work programme for 2013 as an opportunity to simplify the framework, reduce costs and promote growth. The Commission’s proposed revised text contains improvements such as simplifying the framework which comprises a council regulation, an implementing regulation and one covering imports to make it easier for producers to understand their obligations. The proposed move towards a risk-based approach to inspections is positive, recognising those with a history of compliance. This is something that DEFRA is striving to do across a range of sectors.
There are also potential improvements to the trade regime. The proposal replaces the current system of unilateral equivalency with reciprocal trade agreements. UK producers could benefit from better access to international markets and a level playing field with other international businesses. Finally, a group certification provision would allow smaller producers to come together
and be certified as one body, which would lead to lower costs and less administration. However, we have some concerns about other parts of the proposal and we have been negotiating on these for several months. For instance, rather than building on the existing regulation, the Commission opted to take organic production back to basics, proposing stricter rules and increased controls that might choke off the recovery that I have mentioned. I shall highlight the areas of greatest concern to us.The first of these is the removal of exceptional rules which give the sector important flexibility when organic inputs are not available. The continuing need for these reflects the reality that the sector still needs to develop further. Doing away with them could be catastrophic for organic farmers and producers.
The second is the removal of the ability to run mixed farms. More than 20% of organic operators in the UK have mixed holdings. The proposal to ban mixed farms could result in farmers dropping out of organic production and would deter others from entering.
The third is withdrawal of organic products from the market if prohibited substances are detected beyond certain levels. This represents a major change from the current regulation and would mean that contaminated products, even where the contamination was unintentional, accidental and within safe limits, would lose their organic status.
The fourth is the use of delegated Acts. The excessive reliance on such Acts, which, in some cases, give the Commission power to amend “essential elements” of the text, would be counter to the Lisbon treaty.
The final area of concern is removal of the ability to exempt retailers. We believe that imposing additional costs and administrative burdens on small retailers who sell organic products would be a step in the wrong direction.
My letter of 18 December updated the Committee after the negotiations at the December Agriculture Council. In the event, the presidency abandoned the idea of a partial general approach and instead included political guidelines in its progress report to inform future work on the text. Broad support for the guidelines from member states was noted by the council. They include clear progress on some of our key issues, such as mixed farms and the need to reduce the number of delegated Acts.
Furthermore, the presidency’s compromise text gives a clear sense of the direction of travel with the negotiations. This gives me confidence that we can continue to play a leading role in the negotiations to secure the best deal for UK interests and the organic sector. I therefore commend the motion before the Committee today.
The Chair: We have until 3.30 pm to ask questions of the Minister. Please keep questions brief and to the point. Following the question period, Members will have the opportunity to debate.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Perhaps I may put the question that I wrongly asked during the Minister’s statement. Will he clarify whether there is growth now in UK organic production, or whether the figures he referred to are a growth in demand across the UK and the EU?
George Eustice: The figures I gave from the Soil Association show that the market grew by 2.8% in 2013 and now stands at £1.79 billion. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in recent years there has been a slight tailing-off in the amount of organic production in the UK. That is precisely why we have been trying to get the changes we have to this regulation.
Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister mentioned that the compromise text from the December negotiations has given him confidence that there is now a way through. Does he anticipate that the outcome of these negotiations, and the simplification that may flow from it, will mean that we will once again see growth within the organic sector and in the number of organic producers, which has also been in decline?
George Eustice: Yes, I hope it will. Linked to this is the fact that we have also rebalanced away from conversion payments on organic to maintenance payments to ensure that we do not lose any further producers. We sought to retain a range of exceptional measures, such as allowing some feeding of non-organic food to animals or using juvenile fish that are not organic, precisely because we do not want to discourage more people from entering this industry.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Meale. May I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests, as I own some land in Somerset? As far as I am aware, it is not organic. The Minister referred to demand from the People’s Republic of China. I wondered whether it depends on EU regulations to decide whether something is organic, or whether it depends on domestic Chinese regulations.
George Eustice: The forecast growth in China is for organic products. There is mutual recognition of certain organic standards. As I said, one of the good things that we like about this particular regulation is that, rather than just unilaterally recognising the standards of other countries so that they can export their products to us, we will have reciprocal agreements in future so that we will also be able to export to those countries under the same standards.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Minister has claimed to be making progress in negotiations with the European Union. How far is that likely to go? In the document in front of us, it seems that the principle-driven option that the Commission favours takes away the possibility of many exceptional activities which seem essential for the UK Government to prevent extra costs falling on British farmers. I wonder how optimistic the Minister is that this can, in fact, be successful.
George Eustice: On that particular front, I am quite optimistic because a great deal of progress has been made in the working groups. For instance, we have managed to get some agreement that the exceptional rules in article 17 should be changed. We also got an agreement that certain seeds which are not organic could be used for organic production. Some concerns were specifically raised in Scotland about whether farmers
would be able to de-horn cattle, and we managed to get movement on the text in that regard. There were also concerns in Northern Ireland about the requirement for feed for poultry to be raised on-farm or in the region, and we have made some progress on that as well.In many of these areas, especially the exceptional rules and parallel production—where farmers are both organic and non-organic—some good progress has been made. However, we do not yet know whether the Latvian presidency will take this up. There was not an agreement at the December Council to do so. Member states have shared many of our concerns. Progress has been made, and it is worth persevering to see what more progress can be made in the months ahead.
Michael Connarty: I echo the words of the hon. Member for North East Somerset. I think that this is the first time I have served in a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Meale, and it is a great pleasure. In terms of the positives in the proposals from the Commission, removal of the current requirement for mandatory annual verification of compliance is very attractive. However, I wonder how one sets a rule or who will set the rules as to which is a low-risk environment and which is a high-risk environment that should be inspected. It seems to create great uncertainty for the consumer.
George Eustice: We have a proven track record in developing systems to do that in other areas. We have a principle of earned recognition, for example, when it comes to farm inspections generally. If we look at the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, for example, we have managed to move to a system where those agencies shown to be consistently compliant over many years receive fewer inspections. At the moment, control bodies are required to inspect each and every year. It is quite easy to get to a situation where we say that an organic producer who has been producing for, say, five years and has shown no signs of problems might instead be inspected every other year or every third year.
Michael Connarty: The other item that attracted my attention was the proposal to have exclusive organic growth, not mixed farm use, which the Minister said had caused some problems. Is that likely to be a red line for the UK Government? It seems to me that the attractiveness of mixed farming under good discipline is that it works commercially and for the consumer. The proposals seem to be going in the opposite direction. They are saying that they will not inspect everyone, but everyone must be an entirely organic grower. That seems contradictory.
George Eustice: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. At a time when the market is expanding, we should try to expand organic production here. Given that 20% of organic producers in the UK also farm conventionally, it would be a big mistake to force them to choose. Many of those who are currently farming organically would abandon organic production, and that would be a backward step.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Minister mentioned in an earlier answer that poultry are not necessarily on-site and organic for the whole of their lives. Will that apply more broadly? I know that the Government believe that not all organic livestock has to be born and raised on organic holdings, because breeding programmes sometimes require the introduction of outside bloodlines.
George Eustice: Yes, the rules at the moment allow organic holdings to have a certain amount of renewal stock that is not organic but then comes under an organic farming system. The danger of trying to remove that, which was one of the early proposals, is that it makes it far harder for some of those organic producers to restock their farms. That would undermine the organic sector, which is something we have been keen to avoid. We did achieve a compromise; we got movement in our direction to allow the use of non-organic young stock to be used to renew organic herds.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Alan. I wish you and everybody else on the Committee a happy new year.
I want to ask the Minister a general question, but I will flavour it by referring to page 105 paragraph 13. That refers to removing the ability of DEFRA to be the competent authority, which would be
“without any gain for consumers”.
Paragraph 19 on page 106 says that anecdotal evidence suggests that there
“could be a negative impact on organic land area”.
“This proposal could increase non-compliance of organic regulations.”
There is a suggestion through the document that the UK Government were not happy with the proposal to start with but then warmed to it. As the Minister mentioned, there are bits that they welcome. The impression is that the Italian presidency was trying to bounce people to accept the full document. However, the fact that the Council of Ministers only noted it and it has now been passed to the Latvians, shows that there was clearly not sufficient support, as the Minister outlined.
The Minister’s letter of 18 December says:
“Therefore, we expect the negotiations to move quickly under the Latvian presidency.”
Does that mean that the Minister expects a deal from this? The suggestion is that if there is not a conclusion at the end of the Latvian presidency, the proposals will die and will have to go on the back burner again. Is this going to make progress under the Latvian presidency? Will the UK Government support it? Or are reservations so strong that we might baulk at approving anything?
George Eustice: As I said, we support the principle of the dossier because it could help our exporters through the reciprocal agreements and it introduces a risk-based approach to inspections. So there are elements that we like. When I first wrote to the Committee in April, we had big reservations because we could see that some of the restrictions would have a major impact on our industry. There was major progress during the autumn, and we see on many fronts the Commission coming round to our way.
We still want further tweaks to the text; there is a little bit further to go. We are open to the idea of continuing discussions on this for another six months. The Commission has made it clear that it would like to continue for another six months on this dossier. If we cannot get agreement at the end of it, it will be abandoned. I tend to take the view that, having invested so much time in getting an agreement on something and moved it to where we want, it would be a mistake to abandon it and go right back to square one.
The Chair: Order. If no more Members wish to ask questions we will now proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 7956/14, a draft Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No. XXX/XXX [Official Controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007, and No. 8194/14, a Commission Communication: Action Plan for the future of organic production in the European Union; and supports the Government’s approach to amend the proposal to promote continued development of the organic sector and ensure it has an overall positive impact on growth and trade, minimises unnecessary administrative burdens, promotes effective trade across the EU and with third countries, delivers organic products at a fair price and reduces the impact on the environment.—(George Eustice.)
2.49 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. My best wishes for the new year to all Committee members and Members of the House. I very much welcome the consideration of this regulation by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, and I thank other members of the European Scrutiny Committee for bringing this to our attention. It is very timely to consider this, as we are still in the middle of a delicate period of negotiation. We need to unravel some of the concerns that have been expressed for some time, and to end up with an outcome that is good for UK farmers and for the EU as a whole, and that opens markets but does so in the right way.
My first question to the Minister concerns the paradox with which I am very familiar as a former Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk is also familiar with it. The paradox is that we are sometimes blindsided by European regulations or proposals that come down the track and sneak up on us. We wonder how, even with the best intentions in the world, they ended up in that shape. This is one of those classic occasions when the good intentions of simplification, opening markets and so on ended up being, “We’ll rewrite the whole rule book,” rather than, “We’ll work on what we have.” What we had was based on good market intelligence, good market awareness, and a lot of good work over the years by the organic sector and others. Rather than build on that and improve that situation, we are starting from scratch, with potentially perverse and negative consequences.
There were serious concerns. The Minister was exceptionally wise to hold meetings over the past year with UK stakeholders and European colleagues to try to find a way to unravel what was in front of him, and to come before the Committee and say that he has taken those concerns to his European counterparts. He is
more positive today, and is giving more reassurance to the European Scrutiny Committee and to this Committee that there may be a way forward.On that basis—we are where we are—I return to the question that has just been put to the Minister: what if this does not work? What will be done about the potential negative consequences? If the flexibility that he is trying to work into the measure does not materialise by next June or July—we have a couple of years beyond that when we can tie up more of the details—and if by that point are significant areas that will impact negatively on the UK organic sector, does the Minister have red lines? Do other like-minded states have red lines? Will they say, “I’m afraid there is no deal to be cut on this. The negative consequences are too great”?
It is worth going back to the original concerns. Unless the Minister’s words of reassurance bear fruit, we could be back to the situation described by the British Agricultural Bureau, the organisation that represents farming interests within Europe. Last year, when the proposals were originally made, the bureau said that, if they were adopted in that state, they would act as a disincentive for those planning to convert to organic farming, and force some organic farmers to return to conventional farming. The BAB’s concerns related to mixed farms, which carry out both organic and non-organic farming. Many farmers will use that as a transition route into organic farming, or as a balancing proposal—when the organic market is on the up, they will go with that, and at other times they can fall back on more conventional farming.
The BAB went into more detail. It said that
“farmers will no longer be able to grow both organic and conventional produce”
because of the need to be 100% organic.
I have farms in my area that are not 100% organic, but substantially organic. They rely on their other, more conventional farming.
The Minister mentioned concerns about sourcing animal feed locally without any definition of what “locally” means. Of course, European countries apply different definitions of local sourcing.
I may have missed it, but I am not sure whether the Minister referred to the introduction of residue thresholds in his opening statement. Perhaps in his subsequent remarks he will clarify the danger of their ruling out organic farming. I am sure that every organic farmer would want to ensure that they use 100% organic inputs, but there are times when, of necessity and for good considerations, they cannot source such inputs.
There were significant concerns. It seems that the Minister has listened a great deal to organic farmers and the wider agricultural sector during the course of the year and taken those concerns forward. It would be interesting to know who are his significant allies in arguing the case for more flexibility in how the measures are applied, and for having a principle that can be adapted to each member state.
Fundamentally, the Committee will hope that, with the good work that has been done to try to deal with such concerns and give some flexibility, the Minister will not be automatically bounced next June or July into saying, “Yes, we accept what is finally on offer.” Will he
outline the areas that he has more confidence on as well as those over which he still has concerns? Are any of those areas red lines for him and the farming community?There is time to make good on this. It is somewhat surprising that a different approach was not taken, starting with the well trodden path of the organic farming already in place and improving the existing regulations. Will the Minister clarify whether the change did in fact sneak up on DEFRA and bite it? Would he have preferred to have gone a different way? Given where we are now, are there red lines at which he will say, “We will have to walk away from this”? If he did that, would other member nations stand by him?
We hope that that does not happen. We hope that the Minister’s assurances to the Committee bear fruit and that his confidence is well placed. If that is not the case, on behalf of UK farming, he must be willing to say, “No further, because it isn’t right.”
2.57 pm
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I wish you and the whole Committee a happy new year. I and the Liberal Democrats will be quite happy to support a take-note motion on this occasion.
I am a big fan of organic farming, which is important for many reasons, mainly environmental. It promotes healthy, fertile soil, restricts the use of pesticides that can be controversial and sometimes harmful, and promotes animal welfare and a diversity of crops and animals that helps to break cycles of pest and disease, among other things. It also discourages the routine use of antibiotics, which we all now understand is important. For all those reasons, it is important that we encourage organic farming and do not do anything that would inhibit its adoption and expansion.
As the hon. Member for Ogmore has said, the Commission appears to have approached the matter with good intentions. The origin of the revisions to the regulations was simplification, opening markets and trying to remove too many exemptions. However, the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee were right to ring a few alarm bells, because the way in which those revisions have turned out runs a risk of producing something that is so much more rigid and inflexible that it discourages organic production, conversion and so on. That applies in particular to the possible requirement for all organic agricultural holdings to be either 100% organic or not at all. Such inflexibility would discourage people from even beginning the process of conversion.
I am encouraged by the Soil Association, which has told me that Commissioner Hogan has now accepted:
“No one disputes the fact that the current proposal is unacceptable.”
That seems to me a pretty clear indication that the Commission is listening and that progress is being made. If the British Government have been part of the process of making that progress, I commend the Minister for any work that he has done on that, and I wish him well in moving the whole of the Union towards a consensus that is designed to strengthen and expand organic farming across Europe, but on a reasonable and flexible basis.
3 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick: I take the opportunity to reinforce the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore about the question of allies in Europe. It reminds me of our happy days attending European ministerial Councils and trying to work out who were our friends and who were the enemy, which was not always very predictable. And one does not have to be a Eurosceptic. Look at the report, at the end of the bundle of documents, of the ministerial meeting at which an issue was raised by Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, France, Poland, Romania, Estonia and Austria on pigmeats—we obviously have a big interest in the pigmeat sector, and most of those countries were not always on the same side as us—and the meeting on animal welfare briefed by the Danish, the German and the Netherlands delegations, who were more often our friends on agricultural issues. I know that the Minister has to be on his toes all the time, watching the manoeuvres of different countries’ delegations to make sure that we do not miss a trick in protecting UK interests.
It is clear from the questions so far that support for organic expansion is very much part of the essence of the Committee. The documents state that the organic sector has been expanding. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to say whether that is across the EU or within specific countries. He is optimistic that these documents might provide the UK organic sector with opportunities to sell and export more; are those opportunities primarily within the EU or externally as well? Obviously, the Minister has a task on his hands to try to ensure that we get through the bits of the proposals that we support and block those that we do not support, so that he is successful in promoting and protecting this aspect of UK agriculture.
It is a sector that has been in decline, so it is quite positive to hear the Minister say that that decline has been reversed and the organic sector is very much back on the threshold of better things. If this new policy area is going to provide a better framework for the organic sector, obviously we would very much want to be part of that. So we wish the Minister well in trying to influence the Latvian presidency and our friends on the Council of Ministers, in the time that he has between now and the general election.
3.2 pm
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have been remiss in not joining other hon. Members in wishing everybody a happy new year; may I also wish them a happy feast of the Epiphany—because it occurs to me that the stable to which the Magi arrived would have met all the requirements of organic farming, and therefore may be tangentially relevant to this debate.
It is my concern—perhaps a generalised concern—that the European Union always assumes that the answer to any problem is more regulation and more Europe. That can be noted on page 8, the part of the documentation that sets out the existing provisions in this area. It says that
“putting an end to national rules for animal products”
would improve harmonisation. In the impact assessment of the current proposals, it is suggested that competition will become fairer if there is less independence of action
and fewer opt-outs from any of the regulations that are introduced. I think that fundamentally misunderstands how competition ought to work.Competition is not about ensuring that everybody is subject to the same expensive regulations; it is partly about ensuring that a common base of recognition of other people’s regulations allows people to compete in a free way under the rules of their own Governments, rather than requiring centralised, harmonised regulations. That is where differences in each country may well be relevant to the differences in regulations that may be required, and the best people to understand that are likely to be the national Governments rather than—
Martin Horwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will always give way to my hon. Friend.
Martin Horwood: I take the opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a happy Epiphany as well—although I am not sure whether myrrh and frankincense would really count as organic. He is questioning the need for the regulations, but surely if British consumers are to trust products from the rest of Europe that are labelled as organic, there must be a reasonably sound basis for the designation. Things such as enhancing traceability and fraud prevention, or transparency of group certification for small-scale farmers, which are included in the regulations, are clearly sensible if British consumers are to have the same trust in products from the rest of Europe as they do in British organic products.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not sure that more regulation leads to greater trust. In fact, sometimes more regulation simply leads to greater opportunity to evade and avoid the regulations. The hon. Member for Ogmore made the point clearly about the risk of getting away from mixed opportunities. There is a concern that if people have to register their farms as separate holdings, it opens up the possibility of fraudulent transfer between the two of them, as an alternative to maintaining a single holding that can be looked at in its entirety with an element of regulation—I am not against all regulation—but fairly, efficiently and relatively cost-effectively.
The increasing of regulation can therefore make things worse and more susceptible to fraud. It is reasonable to have mutual recognition and acceptance of other people’s standards; then it would be up to consumers to decide. It is about giving information to consumers. They may feel that something certified as organic that comes from France is reliable and trustworthy, but that something marked as organic but coming from some other member state—I would not like to mention one in particular—might be less reliable and more subject to fraud.
People may also rejoice in the European Union’s logo if they so wish. On page 88, we are told that there is a European logo to be put on organic food. I confess that I had never seen it, but I looked it up before coming to the debate; it is a sort of leaf-like thing made up of a number of stars and it looks like a rather badly drawn child’s Christmas card, with the star leaping out. I happen to prefer the red tractor logo as a greater assurance of high standards, but the European one is there if people want to take that trust in other countries’ regulations.
As I said, however, the document misunderstands the basis of competition and always takes the view—this is a general problem that we have in such debates—that more Europe is consistently the answer to the problem. The document states:
“The proposal leads to further harmonisation”
and lists the areas on which further compliance is wanted. A considerable burden is being imposed, to the extent that our own Government have not even been able to work out how much such burdens will cost. The Government are fighting valiantly to keep them as low as possible.
My point is a generalised one—that what we want is genuine competition. We want to give people choice. Personally, I prefer cheaper food to organic food—that is more economic—but other people want to spend more on organic food and they should be entitled to do so. They should be confident that what is being produced meets the requirements, but we have a system in this country that works perfectly well and we want to ensure that there is some flexibility in the system, so that there is not actually a reduction in choice. By trying to aim for perfection, the ability of some farmers to go down the organic route is in fact destroyed. That is particularly important in breeding programmes, where it might be necessary to bring in animals from outside farms that have not always been organic to continue the success of a farming operation.
The idea that a further burden of regulation and cost is what we need must be wrong. I am so relieved that the Minister is fighting it and I hope that he will carry on doing so and will model himself on the new hero of Eurosceptics, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who recently stormed out of the European Council of Ministers in a state of high dudgeon in protection of the people of Gibraltar. I hope that in protecting my constituents and the farmers of Somerset and the United Kingdom more generally, the Minister will take that bold and forthright approach.
3.9 pm
Michael Connarty: Sir Alan, I am sure that the reference to Gibraltar will have warmed your heart, knowing the interest that you share with me in the oppression of the people of that island.
The question for me is whether the resolution before us is one that can be supported. I have to say that the balance in the resolution, which is to support the Government’s approach to amending the proposal, is very attractive. It is not a question of giving the Government carte blanche to continue with the proposal in its present form. The Minister said in August 2014 that the proposal is “largely negative” for the UK’s organic sector and consumers.
I know less about the organic sector than the hon. Member for North East Somerset does, but I certainly know a lot about consumers’ aspirations. People want food that is not contaminated by early inputs of hormones if it is meat or livestock products and is not contaminated in any way by insecticides or pesticides that are not supposed to be used in organic production. Those are the things that are important. I saw the inherent contradictions, as I mentioned, in saying on the one hand that less risky farms would not necessarily be
inspected every year, and on the other that higher-risk farms would be inspected more regularly. The Minister said that we have a good regime in the UK to do that. However, I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 15 years and we have watched the competence creep of the European Commission. Particularly when regulations are used, it continues to drive those regulations much more strongly than it could with a directive, which becomes overburdening on both costs and the regimes of demand for individual producers.For me, it is not a question of being against more Europe, as I do not agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset on that, as long as it does not mean more unnecessary regulation. I am reminded of the REACH directive, which started out looking at about 400 chemicals that were probably troublesome in their inclusion in compounds and so on. It ended up with a regime where every single chemical had to be reassessed at a cost of about £80,000, making the chemical industry much more expensive. When we look at these things, we have to be aware whether there is likely to be competence creep and increasing regulation rather than just more Europe.
If Europe is used to make it easier for people to trade and for these standards to be accepted by everyone in a way that is not extremely expensive, that can be supported. However, the Minister said—I quote again from his own letter—that
“it is unclear whether the potential price increases have been accounted for in consumer surveys”.
In a sense, he is still in the dark about the consequences of what is proposed. It was clear during the Italian presidency that a number of things were forced through because the Italians wanted to be seen to be doing something. I think of the ports regulations, which were very damaging to the ports of the UK. They just wanted to get something on the statute book to say that their presidency had been worth while. I am glad that it was not pushed through and was opposed by the Committee and the Government.
The consumer interest is what I want to see. We want organic food that is clearly not contaminated. People sometimes choose organic food because they believe that the food we have at the moment is far too contaminated and is damaging the long-term health of their children and the future. That view is shared by a number of people who are willing to pay a small additional price, but they will not necessarily have to be in a situation where it is so costly that they cannot afford it. Producers want a regime that is fair to everyone across the EU. I remember going to Poland before it joined the EU, and the number of farms could not even be counted because they were so small and there were so many small producers subsisting as farmers yet getting direct payments from the European Union to continue at that small level. We do not have that. We have an efficient farming system and if we make it less efficient by saying, “You must break off your farm and somehow re-fence it into a holding that is organic and a holding that is non-organic,” costs would be imposed on the UK that would not necessarily be imposed on small farmers in other parts of the European Union.
If the Minister wants the approval of this Committee to go and amend the proposals in a way that is beneficial to the consumer and to the farming community, particularly
those who want to be in organic farming but want to do it in a mixed environment, I think that he should have our support. However, if he goes back and allows the Latvians to push through a deal which takes that option away from UK farmers, he will be doing us a great disservice.3.15 pm
George Eustice: A number of points have been made. I want to pick up on as many as I can. The shadow Minister asked whether we would walk away and what would happen if the continued negotiations do not work and we do not get what we want. I can confirm that we would walk away. For instance, if we had been discussing the original text, which I wrote to the Committee about in April, I would have instructed officials to vote against it because it would have been unacceptable to the UK.
The shadow Minister asked how we ended up here. This is often the case; the measure has good intentions and it is surprising that the Commission came up with the initial text that it did last spring. I agree with that. To be fair to the Commission, as it is not here, I should explain its rationale to the Committee. Its argument was that the measure could strengthen consumer confidence in organic products by tightening up regulations so that consumers had absolute confidence. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham alluded to. The Commission argues that there would be a five-year transitional period—to 2020—to get where it is aiming. We disagreed with the Commission; particularly the removal of the ability to have parallel production would be a retrograde step that would damage the industry.
I want to say a little bit about where we have made progress and where there is more to be done, which the shadow Minister highlighted. On article 10, which is about plant production rules, we had concerns about the removal of the ability to use non-organic seeds. The Commission has moved on that and reintroduced the ability to do that. On article 11 about livestock production rules, we were concerned about the removal of the ability to use non-organic animals for breeding; that has been reintroduced in the latest text. On article 12, we had concerns about aquaculture, as the Commission removed the ability to use non-organic juvenile fish. That has now been reintroduced.
Finally, when it comes to production rules for processed food and feed, we were concerned about the removal of the ability for member states to temporarily authorise the use of non-organic ingredients when organic ones are not available on the market. Some flexibility has been reintroduced there.
So there has been progress in some areas but there is more to do. The hon. Member for Ogmore asked about red lines. The particular one for us is reducing the number of delegated acts; currently around 30 are proposed. We recognise that some of them are needed because new products may come on to the market, for which production rules need to be developed. In that case, there is a justification for delegated acts. However, as I said in my opening remarks, some of the proposals for delegated acts were challenging the scope of the main regulation and were therefore in breach of the principle of the Lisbon treaty. We want to ensure that we get this watertight—that the main regulation contains the scope of the provision. In particular, we are resistant
to any idea of a delegated act that might widen the scope to include, for example, textiles. The measure should be focused only on agricultural products.In terms of red lines, we would not accept any backsliding now; for instance, the removal of those exceptional rules, which are crucial. We would not accept any proposal that would remove the ability to have parallel production and we want to see further reductions of delegated acts.
We want to make progress in other areas. For instance, on the organic certification system, we have concerns about the removal of the ability to exempt retailers from the control system. At the moment, retailers do not have to be registered to sell. It would damage the market if they suddenly had to go through an expensive registration and control system, so we oppose that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset touched on article 25 regarding the organic certificates. At the moment, organic food produced, for example, in Poland to Polish standards can, when it comes to the UK, be given a Soil Association logo because that is recognised in the UK and commands consumer confidence. At one stage, there was a proposal to ban operators from being able to be certified by more than one control body, which means that food produced to organic standards in Poland would have to carry some Polish logo that would not be recognised in the UK. It is right that they can be certified by more than one control body. That has not been adequately addressed yet, so there is more work to do on that front.
In conclusion, we have made some good progress on this dossier, which is why we did not feel the need to vote against it. We have many allies. I have heard about
the incident of the Transport Minister in the European Council when Gibraltar was being discussed. I can assure Members that that will not be necessary on this issue because, perhaps unusually and refreshingly, the UK has many allies on this front. The shadow Minister asked who they are. Germany is supportive of us and I discussed the dossier with the German Minister in the margins of the Council meeting in December. The Netherlands and Poland support us, and Denmark supports us on most of the issues that we are pushing. There is a wide alliance of member states that share our concerns, which is why we have made such good progress to date and why I am hopeful that we can make further progress on the areas where we have outstanding concerns.That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 7956/14, a draft Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No. XXX/XXX [Official Controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007, and No. 8194/14, a Commission Communication: Action Plan for the future of organic production in the European Union; and supports the Government’s approach to amend the proposal to promote continued development of the organic sector and ensure it has an overall positive impact on growth and trade, minimises unnecessary administrative burdens, promotes effective trade across the EU and with third countries, delivers organic products at a fair price and reduces the impact on the environment.