House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Nov 1989

Home Page

Column 1143

House of Commons

Thursday 9 November 1989

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill

[Lords] (By Order) Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Monday 13 November.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill

[Lords] (By Order)

British Railways Bill

(By Order)

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill

(By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 13 November.

Birmingham City Council

(No. 2) Bill-- (By Order) Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Wednesday 15 November.

Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill

[Lords] (By Order) Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 13 November.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

[Lords] (By Order) Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 15 November.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

[Lords]

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session ;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time ;

Column 1144

That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session ; That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November at Seven o'clock.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session ;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered on Monday 13 November at Seven o'clock.

Private Bills

[Lords] [Suspension]--

Motion made,

That so much of the Lords Messages [2nd November, 7th November and 8th November] as relates to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords] , the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords] , the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] be now considered.

That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered this day at Seven o'clock.

Column 1145

Oral Answers to Questions

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Bill

1. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the forthcoming food Bill ; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer) : I have received a wide range of representations. I intend to introduce new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Mr. Riddick : Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the forthcoming food Bill will not impose unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation on Britain's very successful food industry? Is he aware, for example, that many small, traditional family bakers could be driven out of business by the proposal to refrigerate or to freeze their products, particularly when those products are sold on the same day as they are produced? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the small corner bread shop is protected?

Mr. Gummer : The particular point to which my hon. Friend refers comes from a different source, but,in general, it is vital for the success of the British food industry that British consumers should feel that food is entirely safe and that we are acting on their side when we try to ensure that any gaps in the existing law are filled. I put food safety first and I hope that we will be able to achieve that end with the least amount of bureaucracy.

Mr. Vaz : Will the Minister ensure that the new Bill contains clear regulations concerning the importation and sale of irradiated food? Does he share my concern about reports that irradiated food, such as prawns and shell fish, has found its way into this country, been sold to companies, processed into canned food and sold in our shops? Will he ensure that the new Bill contains clauses to prevent such activities?

Mr. Gummer : If what the hon. Gentleman says were true I would be extremely concerned. I heard this allegation, yet again, but I was disappointed to find that those who made it had not bothered to put in front of me the evidence that they claimed to have. I asked immediately for that evidence and three days later, it arrived. I am having it examined urgently. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that consumers should choose whether they want irradiated food. All irradiated food should be properly labelled ; then it will be for the consumer to decide.

Saccharin

2. Mr. Shersby : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consideration he has given to the case for reducing the level of saccharin intake on health grounds and its implications for his decision to abolish the minimum sugar standard for soft drinks : and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Maclean) : I hav

Column 1146

asked my independent advisory committee for advice on the level of saccharin in certain foods. The revised soft drinks regulations retain, for the present, their statutory maximum level on the use of saccharin.

Mr. Shersby : In view of the urgent advice which my hon. Friend seeks from his expert committees about the need to reduce the level of saccharin in the diet, is it not unwise at the same time to abolish the minimum sugar standard of soft drinks and thus open the way to the use of more artificial sweeteners, instead of safe and nutritious natural sweeteners?

Mr. Maclean : Just because we are removing the minimum sugar standard in drinks does not mean that there will be an increase in artificial sweeteners. We are maintaining the present regulation which insists on not more than a certain amount of saccharin in all soft drinks and food.

Mr. Spearing : Does the Minister agree that if the level of saccharin were reduced to protect the health of the people of the United Kingdom, that would give an opportunity for the greater use of cane sugar from the Commonwealth and help Commonwealth producers?

Mr. Maclean : It may and it may not. Most soft drinks already contain much more than the minimum level of sugar. Even if it was found that there were risks connected with saccharin and people used less saccharin in soft drinks, an increase in the amount of sugar in soft drinks would not automatically follow.

Sir William Clark : Is my hon. Friend aware that if the abolition takes place, a large tonnage of sugar will be lost to the market? Has the Ministry made any estimate of what that loss will be? My information is that it will be about 150,000 tonnes a year. If that is so, what effect will it have on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries--the Commonwealth countries which, under the Lome convention, have quotas of cane sugar coming into this country?

Mr. Maclean : I repeat the point : the abolition of the minimum requirement of sugar will not result in a substantial reduction in sugar in soft drinks. Many soft drinks, by their nature, require sugar for their flavour and texture. We believe that labelling is the correct requirement and if people want drinks with less sugar, those drinks should be labelled so that people can make their own decisions. The consumers' safety is paramount.

Fisheries Policy

3. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Curry) : I shall attend the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27 November.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing : In a recent Adjournment debate the Minister gave a commitment that there would be an announcement on a decommissioning scheme this side of Christmas. Is the Ministry in a position to make such an announcement?

Column 1147

Mr. Curry : I see no reason to change my position : we should settle this by Christmas. However, this will not be on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, and I do not intend to raise it with the Council.

Mr. Robert Hicks : Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable unease about the implications of the recent statement by the European Court, and the subsequent action taken, on the availability of fish off the south-west coast in the English channel? Will he assure the House that during the next negotiations he will seek an enhanced total allowable catch to take account of the additional fishing vessels in our waters?

Mr. Curry : My hon. Friend raises two points : the first relates to the so-called quota hoppers. We are confident that we still have a substantial provision, which is supported by the court, to defend ourselves against the great bulk of those hoppers. Whether I press for additional amounts of fish depends on the scientific evidence available to us. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall do so if the evidence from the scientists shows that it would be imprudent. I cannot invent fish, and there are not enough of them about at the moment.

Mr. Robert Hughes : The Minister discusses quotas and the total allowable catch with the scientists. Will he conduct an urgent investigation into the quality of scientific advice? It cannot be right that one year we are given one total allowable catch, and the next year it is cut by a third. We do not know where we are. Will the Minister make provision for an increase in the allowable catch, set up a far-reaching inquiry and ensure that the scientific evidence is right so that we can achieve stability in the industry?

Mr. Curry : I am always willing to review the methodology of the collection of information on total allowable catches. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done by an international body. What I am not willing to do, once that evidence is presented, is to apply some sort of political coefficient to it just because that is convenient for political reasons. We depend on scientific advice reached objectively. I shall review it, but I will not invent fish.

Geese and Ducks (Defeathering)

4. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest situation as regards the EEC proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for defeathering of geese and ducks.

Mr. Gummer : The European Community has made no proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for this purpose.

Mr. Coombs : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the British poultry industry about a proposed Government regulation to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax in the defeathering process, as part of a more general ban on mineral hydrocarbon oils? Is he further aware that the food science laboratory says that such waxes and oils have no effect on human health and that the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concurred with that view? Even if the ban were imposed, it would not apply to our European competitors ; as a result it would hand a

Column 1148

large part of the British poultry market to those competitors and there would be no improvement in the health of the people eating the birds.

Mr. Gummer : I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to reassert that the primary purpose of Government legislation in this area is the safety of the public. That must come first. I am looking at the representations from the industry, and I realise its concern. It would, of course, also be ridiculous to put ourselves into a position in which people could not buy British products but could buy continental products which had been treated in exactly the same way as those that we had prohibited in Britain. This matter must primarily be sorted out in the European Community and I am considering the best way of doing that.

Mr. Ashton : If the Minister cannot tell us about geese and ducks, can he tell us about defeathering Prime Ministers? Is there to be a stalking horse or not?

Mr. Gummer : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come often to agriculture questions, because the industry that we are discussing and the consumers who use its products are the most important in Britain. We want to ensure that the industry is healthy and we do not like it being used for cheap political jibes.

Food Labelling

5. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has had since taking office with retailers on the subject of food labelling.

Mr. Maclean : I have met a number of retailers individually and collectively and have discussed with them a wide range of labelling matters.

Mr. Marshall : Apart from these discussions, has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry the need for proper refrigeration and storage? Does he agree that if all retailers were as good as Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury there would be no problem of food poisoning?

Mr. Maclean : I have visited some large superstores especially to look at refrigeration and I am well aware of the high standards in the vast majority of superstores, markets and shops in this country. Nevertheless, my colleagues in the Department of Health are examining measures to improve our refrigeration and storage yet further and we are co-operating fully with them.

Mr. Martyn Jones : If the Minister persists in allowing irradiation, will he make sure that irradiated food is labelled as such and does not have a stupid label stuck on it whose meaning would not be obvious to the consumer?

Mr. Maclean : It is very simple. I repeat the promise made from this Dispatch Box on many occasions : irradiated food will be properly labelled with the words "irradiated" or "subjected to ionising radiation". A logo is not in itself sufficient.

Mr. John Greenway : Does my hon. Friend agree that if his welcome food labelling initiative is to be successful, the labels on food packages must be honest? What plans does he have to ensure that the origin of food products is clearly marked and that labels marked "British beef", "British lamb" or "British eggs" mean what they say?

Column 1149

Mr. Maclean : I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister made that very point in an important speech yesterday. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that labelling must be honest. For example, Britain has set up UKROFS--the United Kingdom register of organic food standards--to ensure that the important organic food sector is not damaged by anyone who puts on food an organic label which it might not deserve. We are trying to introduce that system across the EEC because it is best to have EEC-wide organic food standards.

Mr. Ron Davies : If the Minister understands the importance of information in facilitating consumer choice, why on earth does he not pursue a more vigorous policy? Will he acknowledge that the scheme that he presently favours is only voluntary and will not provide essential information such as the amount of sugar in a product or allow a consumer to differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats? They are major deficiencies. Will the Minister reconsider the scheme for which he is arguing in the Council and recognise that, if nutrition labelling is to be effective, it must be not only comprehensive but mandatory?

Mr. Maclean : I reject the hon. Gentleman's point. Britain is in the lead in nutritional labelling in the EEC. The hon. Gentleman must face the political reality that not many other EEC countries agree with the Government's labelling initiative on nutritional standards. As there is no prospect of a compulsory scheme being accepted at this stage, I see no point in bashing my head against a brick wall on this point. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are requirements in the directive. We can have mandatory labelling for certain nutrients if we perceive a particular risk. The British Government are insisting on a review of the voluntary proposals in three years' time to see whether they are working adequately.

Dairy Sector

6. Mr. Knox : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

Mr. Curry : My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss a range of issues affecting the industry.

Mr. Knox : When my hon. Friend next meets the president, will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining milk prices to ensure the continuing viability of dairy farms, particularly small dairy farms, which are essential if the fabric of the countryside as we know it is to be retained?

Mr. Curry : I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Dairying is essential to the countryside. Real incomes in the dairy sector increased by 16 per cent. last year because quotas brought stability and profitability, and we aim to keep it that way.

Mr. Cryer : When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector, will he take into account the fact that there is a large butter surplus-- [Hon. Members :- - "No, there is not."] It is part of the dairy sector. When the Minister distributes the large

Column 1150

dairy surplus in the form of butter, will he make sure that there is no confusion and disruption in Bradford, for example, because there are too few outlets for free EEC butter? Instead of obstructing distribution and refusing to allow new outlets, will the Minister adopt a different policy and thereby avoid the confusion, frustration and bad tempers that arise because of the long queues that are formed as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman is somewhat out of date. There is no longer a butter surplus. The justification for the scheme to which he refers is no longer relevant : it was to dispose of a surplus that no longer exists. If I had my way, I would not continue it at all.

Mr. Andy Stewart : My hon. Friend knows well that we cannot discuss dairy farming in isolation from other sectors. For example, wheat prices are 40 per cent. below what they were four years ago and bread prices are up by 20 per cent. As three companies mill 95 per cent. of Britain's flour, is it not time that we referred them to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Curry : I agree with my hon. Friend that the arable sector has been under considerable pressure. That is why we are seeking to assist it in the European negotiations. We have always been hostile to the co- responsibility levy, which is such a burden upon the arable sector. I am sure that we shall continue to seek higher profitability in this important sector of our countryside.

Dr. David Clark : Will the Minister explain to the House why, having been informed by Dutch agriculture authorities on 1 November of the presence of lead-contaminated animal feedstock in the United Kingdom, he waited five days until 6 November before imposing restrictions? Why did he not issue precautionary notices to farmers immediately, warning them not to give this contaminated feedstock to their animals, thereby avoiding unnecessary cattle deaths and potentially hazardous milk entering the food chain?

Mr. Curry : The Minister acted with exemplary promptness. The hon. Gentleman has made a profession of trying to promote this sort of scare. We took action immediately. We recalled the contaminated feedstock and we have taken steps to ensure that no milk is distributed from the farms and no animals are slaughtered off the farms. We have taken every measure that could be taken and acted with a promptness of which the hon. Gentleman would have been proud had he been responsible for it.

Hens

7. Mr. Baldry : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the testing of small flocks of free-range hens.

Mr. Gummer : I have received a large number of representations. These were taken into account in the preparation of the new orders of 26 October and will result in a considerable reduction in the cost of testing, particularly for small flocks.

Mr. Baldry : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the testing requirements for salmonella for small flocks have caused considerable concern for organisations such as the Women's Institute and for people such as my mother-in-law, who sell free-range eggs at stalls at

Column 1151

Women's Institute branches and at farm gates? These organisations and individuals will welcome the much simplified testing arrangements, the substantially reduced requirement for testing and the substantially reduced costs of testing for salmonella. Any reasonable- minded person will feel that my right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance.

Mr. Gummer : I have received many letters from people who have stated that we have done exactly what was right. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's mother-in-law was among them. We had to put the safety of the eggs first. If we had not done that, smaller flocks such as those owned by my hon. Friend's mother-in-law might have been blamed for a future outbreak of salmonella. That would have been damaging to the consumer and to my hon. Friend's mother-in-law.

Mr. Beith : Why was it that when one of my constituents from Wooler made representations to the Minister on this matter and was featured in a national newspaper, a newspaper cutting was sent to the regional eggs inspector, who was dispatched on a 300-mile trip to warn my constituent to stop selling eggs that were not in boxes and had not been through a packing station? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to enforce these crazy packing rules on all free-range eggs sold in shops, or is enforcement reserved as a form of intimidation that is more characteristic of East European regimes than one would expect in this country?

Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman is being less than kind. We sought to help his constituent-- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should hear me out. In the course of becoming aware of the lady's problem, we discovered that she might inadvertently have been breaking the law. She may have been doing what the hon. Gentleman said : selling her product through the village shop. We have laws that are designed to protect people from being ripped off. If we allowed free-range eggs to be sold that were not boxed some people would try to obtain a premium from eggs that were not produced in that way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman belonged to a party which believed in protecting the consumer. I put the consumer first.

Mr. Key : As a rural Member, I have been under pressure from a number of members of the Women's Institute, including my wife, about egg production. I hope that my right hon. Friend can clarify a serious issue that arises from the orders that he has laid. There is genuine confusion about small flocks. When there is talk about a small flock of fewer than 25 birds, does that mean chickens or a combination of 25 chickens and ducks, for example? Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position?

Mr. Gummer : We are talking about 25 chickens. The combination position is quite different. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that those of us who believe that we should be allowed to buy free range eggs, in the knowledge that they are both safe and free range when we pay for them, do not want the market to be undermined by those who want to get rid of the restrictions. We do not want them to move in and make a fast buck.

Mr. Home Robertson : Will the Minister confirm that in recent months six consignments of imported eggs have been found to be contaminated with salmonella, yet all those consignments have been sold on the British market

Column 1152

without let or hindrance? What is the point of driving 1,600 British egg producers out of business, as the Government have done during the past year, and then allowing foreign producers to fill the gap in the market without being subject to equivalent safety tests? Should there not now be effective health controls on all eggs supplied to British shops?

Mr. Gummer : Of course I can confirm those figures because they are my own figures ; they were given to the hon. Gentleman by my Ministry. The hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no service if he does not admit that the Government are fighting for our regulations on salmonella to be extended throughout the whole of the European Community. That is the only fair way to go about things. In the meantime, the 97 per cent. of eggs that people buy in this country, which are produced by this country's farmers, are all the safer because they are protected by our regulations. The hon. Gentleman should be fighting for people in Britain to buy British eggs, knowing that they are better protected. He and his hon. Friends should not constantly try to undermine the market.

Mr. Alexander : Is it not true that free-range hens can often be more at risk of salmonella than battery hens because of birds of the air and others farmyard detritus? Have the figures that my hon. Friend has produced helped to resolve that argument?

Mr. Gummer : When the salmonella arguments began, there were those who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the problem would help them in their argument in favour of free-range hens rather than battery hens. The very best that can be said is that there is no proof that the risks of salmonella are any less in free-range eggs than they are in any other sort of eggs. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right to say that there are natural hazards which could perhaps lead to somewhat greater risks in free-range eggs.

If we are to have a healthy egg industry in Britain, we must ensure that our eggs are better protected than other eggs. People should be aware that the eggs that they buy are much safer and much more likely to be healthy eggs if they buy British. Whether my hon. Friend or his constituents want battery eggs, perch eggs or free-range eggs, they should first ensure that they are buying British eggs.

Sheep

8. Mr. Livsey : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the present state of the British sheep industry.

Mr. Curry : The industry is pleased that the essential decisions on reform of the sheepmeat regime have been taken and is anxious to get on with the job of securing export markets.

Next Section

Home Page