More flak as Ministers ‘failing to back farmers with food deals’

THE Government has been accused of having a confused approach to buying British food after fresh criticism of its failure to do more to back domestic farmers.

Labour said Ministers were “failing to deliver jobs and growth in the UK food industry” after seizing on the Yorkshire Post’s revelation last month that caterers employed by the department in charge of promoting British food were sourcing two thirds of their produce from overseas.

Shadow Environment Secretary Mary Creagh also accused Number Ten of failing to reveal how much of its food is produced in the UK and said there was “confusion” among other departments over a Government drive that requires Whitehall to buy food produced to higher UK welfare standards, as long as it is not more expensive.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman defended the Government’s performance and said it would break international trade laws if departments were told only to buy British food.

Yesterday’s angry House of Commons clashes followed this newspaper’s investigation last month that revealed significant differences across Government in backing British farmers. The Department for Work and Pensions bought just 11 per cent of food from Britain, compared with 85 per cent by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Ms Creagh, MP for Wakefield, seized on the admission by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – which introduced new cross-Government “buying standards” on food – that just 30 per cent of produce bought by its catering contractor was sourced in the UK.

She said: “Defra Ministers are simply failing to deliver jobs and growth in the UK food industry, which is the country’s largest manufacturing sector. We have seen how unfair competition from abroad for egg producers has been allowed — Defra is supine.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The shadow food Minister has asked many questions yet Number 10 has not revealed how much of its food is sourced from the UK. There is confusion across Government: some departments reply on what British produce they bought, and some reply on food that is sourced to UK standards.”

Addressing Ms Spelman, she added: “Will she have a word and ensure that the next time guests sit down for dinner with the Prime Minister, the food they enjoy is 100 per cent UK-sourced and that it supports jobs in this country?”

Politicians from all parties have professed their desire for the £2billion-a-year buying power of the public sector to better support British farmers, who have often been put at a disadvantage by having to foot the bill for higher welfare standards than their overseas counterparts.

Imposing a “buy British” edict would breach free trade rules, so instead Ministers drew up new buying standards last year that require Whitehall departments to buy food that meets UK welfare standards.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There has been criticism, however, that the Government left a loophole by only requiring departments to follow the rules if it does not cost more, while the standards also do not apply to schools, hospitals or prisons.

Ms Creagh called for the Government to reform public procurement rules “to play its part in our economic recovery and to support jobs skills and apprenticeships here in the UK”.

But Mrs Spelman defended the Government’s record, saying: “World Trade Organisation rules mean that we can require purchasing to British standards in Government procurement, but we cannot require produce to be British. We adhere to those rules, and we actively promote Government buying standards involving all Departments sourcing food that is produced to British standards in order to promote those standards.”

She added: “The situation has not changed since [Labour] was in office. The difference is that the Government have placed a requirement on all departments to procure food to British standards.

“As a shadow Secretary of State, she cannot encourage the Government of the day to breach World Trade Organisation rules by calling for British products. That is the distinction.”

Comment: Page 12.