| Home Page |
Column 417
House of Commons
Thursday 21 February 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
[Lords] (By Order) Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Thursday 28 February.
Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill
[Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Wednesday 27 February at Seven o' clock.
London Underground (No. 2) Bill
(By Order) Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 February.
Mr. Speaker : As Bills 3 to 14 on the Order Paper have blocking motions, with the leave of the House, I shall put them together.
Cattewater Reclamation Bill
(By Order)
Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill
(By Order)
London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill
(By Order)
Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill
(By Order)
Birmingham City Council Bill
(By Order)
British Railways Bill
(By Order)
East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill
(By Order)
London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
(By Order)
London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
(By Order)
Midland Metro
(No. 2) Bill -- (By Order)
Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
(By Order)
British Railways
(No. 3) Bill-- [Lords] (By Order) Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 February.
Column 418
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Common Agricultural Policy
1. Mr. Burns : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his objectives to be achieved in any reform of the CAP.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer) : Any reform of the common agricultural policy should make European Community agriculture more market-oriented, reduce budget costs, lead to closer integration between agricultural and environmental policies, and apply fairly throughout the Community.
Mr. Burns : On behalf of farmers in Chelmsford, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his forthright rejection of proposals that meet none of those criteria and that place British farmers at an unfair disadvantage compared with European farmers? Will my right hon. Friend contrast his robust defence of British farming interests with the craven attitude of the Liberal party, the leader of which is reported to have said --
Mr. Speaker : No, these are questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend fully elaborate on his robust defence of British farming interests and tell the House that he will never accuse British farmers of "whingeing" and that he will not allow British farmers to be placed at a disadvantage compared with small European farmers?
Mr. Gummer : I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. This is a battle which must be fought on behalf of the farming community throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that what farmers are saying about their present position and the damage that the current proposals would do is absolutely true. I deplore suggestions that they are in any way "whingeing" and I am sorry that the word was used by the leader of the Liberal party.
Mr. Duffy : Will the Minister assure the House that the internal logic of the CAP, which has driven us for so long to the destruction of wetlands, moorland, woodlands and birdlife, has been arrested and, preferably, put into reverse?
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman's comments are perhaps a little sweeping. The internal power of the CAP ensured that the European Community ceased to fear hunger and could feed its people. That is a great achievement. I support the hon. Gentleman's view that, today, in a world of surplus, our environmental policies should be integrated with our agricultural policies. That is one of the basic principles that I enunciated earlier.
Mr. Favell : My right hon. Friend may know that this is the 150th anniversary of the election to the House of that greatest of free traders, the anti-corn law campaigner, Richard Cobden. Does he agree that a wonderful way to
Column 419
celebrate that event would be to rid ourselves of the 20th century equivalent of the corn laws, the common agricultural policy?Mr. Gummer : If my hon. Friend were to read Richard Cobden's views more closely, he would discover that he does not adhere to many of them. It would not help farmers, environmentalists or citizens of Britain to destroy our countryside by not ensuring a reasonable livelihood for those who look after it--the farmers.
Mr. Geraint Howells : I do not wish to make a political point--
Mr. Cryer : Fancy doing that in here-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Howells : In view of the crisis currently facing British agriculturists, what advice would the Minister give to young farmers who want to enter the industry today?
Mr. Gummer : My first advice is that they should support the Government's recent proposals, which would make it easier for land to be available to let. Secondly, I hope that if they enter farming, they will set out to produce goods that the public want and to narrow the gap between imports and exports of food products which was graphically exposed yesterday by Food From Britain. Thirdly, there will be a difficult time ahead because we are in a world of surplus for those who can afford it, but in such a world there will always be a place for the specialist, efficient producer who produces what the public want and at a price that they can afford.
2. Mr. Gill : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reforms of the CAP he will propose to improve the prospects of closing the trade gap in food and drink products.
Mr. Gummer : We have to take every opportunity to ensure that the reform of the CAP enables British farmers to improve their marketing and their share of the whole European market.
Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend has already referred to this morning's announcement that the trade deficit in food and drink products has widened. Will he take an early opportunity to discuss with the chairman of Food From Britain how that trend could be reversed? In those discussions, will he consider how the French have apparently managed to do the opposite during the past 12 years, by creating a surplus in food and drink profits which is equivalent to the deficit that we are experiencing?
Mr. Gummer : I thank my hon. Friend for referring to Food From Britain. Since taking over that body, its dynamic chairman, Paul Judge, has concentrated on precisely that issue, which is an important aspect of British farming and British food production. We should have a major campaign to ensure that people realise that in choosing food, there is a remarkable range of extremely good products from this country. I do not want anyone to buy British merely because it is British but because it is the best. In whole areas of food production, British is best. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if you wish to buy an egg produced under the safest conditions and regulations and with the best in animal welfare, you should buy a British egg and no one else's.
Column 420
Mr. Graham : If the Minister wishes to close the trade gap in food, will he consider a letter that I received from a farmer in my area who is very concerned about the closure of the knackeries? That makes it difficult for farmers to get as much money as they used to get before the advent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Mr. Gummer : The inability to sell fallen stock but to have to pay for it to be taken away has more to do with the fact that the price of tallow, which is the major end product, has been driven down to a third of its original price. The hon. Gentleman does the industry no good by suggesting that the reason for the problems in the knacker and the rendering industries is other than the world problem of a low price for their products.
Miss Emma Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consumers' ability to buy British depends on the freest possible market? In that context, does he agree that the reason why the British consumer so often has to buy French cheese or German yoghurt lies in the monopolistic and outdated practices of the milk marketing board? Does he support the milk marketing board's upcoming proposals, which should create a freer market--and not just in whole milk products?
Mr. Gummer : I look forward to the milk marketing board's proposals. I agree that it is very difficult to see how British producers can get the best price for their milk or how British manufacturers can get the best part of the market for their manufactured products unless the system, which was designed for wholly different circumstances, is changed. If not, British producers will be supplying the end of the market that produces the least money while the top end of the market will be provided by products coming from the rest of Europe.
Dr. David Clark : On the trade gap, did the Minister see the claim by Safeway supermarkets earlier this week that it had to import 70 items of food which could be grown in Britain because British suppliers could not guarantee quality, consistency or price? If that is true, it is a massive indictment of our agricultural support system. Will the Minister set up an inquiry into that allegation, which has also been made to me from other quarters? It is the reason why we have a massive £5.1 billion deficit in food trade.
Mr. Gummer : That question would have come better from the hon. Gentleman had he not advised people to eat New Zealand apples and said that he did not eat British sausages. It would be much easer to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman if he had not spent the past 18 months undermining the British food and farming industries. On that basis, I shall decide what action to take without the benefit of any spurious advice from the hon. Gentleman.
Set-aside Scheme
3. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of new applicants for the set-aside scheme have applied for the non-agricultural use and woodland options.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : About 27 per cent. of third-year set-aside applicants in England applied for the non-agricultural use option and about 5 per cent. applied for the woodland option.
Column 421
Mr. Taylor : My hon. Friend gives rather disappointing figures. Will he try to galvanise the famers of Esher-- [Laughter.] I should have thought that that would be taken seriously. Will my hon. Friend try to galvanise the many farmers of Esher into adopting the woodland option so that we can add woodlands to the green belt and have all the attractions of woodlands, with their waving trees, dells, glades and cover for pheasants?
Mr Curry : I accept that the woodland option under set-aside has not proved as popular as we had hoped. That is why we are examining the relationship between the farm woodlands scheme and all the other woodland schemes to determine whether we can put together a better package. We intend to draw up a consultation paper and I shall take particular care to forward it to the farmers of Esher. If we wish to carry out experimental work, no doubt they will volunteer for it.
Mr. Morley : Perhaps one reason why farmers have not been keen on set-aside is that it appears that farmers are being paid for doing nothing. But it is an opportunity to use public money in a desirable way, because it encourages the creation of woodland. If land is to be set aside, it should be used in ways that encourage wildlife and promote conservation. I know that there are premium payments for doing that.
Will the Minister give an assurance that farmers will be encouraged to participate in the woodland schemes, particularly for urban and community forestry? The schemes enable farmers to take their land out of production and put it into forestry for the benefit of themselves and the community in general.
Mr. Curry : In the early stages of the set-aside scheme, when whole farms could be taken out of production, people may have been able to level the accusation that it was payment for doing nothing. In fact, that was not the case, because farmers had to maintain their land in trim. But that accusation was precisely the reason why we reduced the incentives for whole -farm set-aside. We have steadily increased the environmental element of set-aside, because that is the best justification for the scheme. We intend to take the Countryside Commission's East Anglia premium scheme nationwide and we are looking hard at its environmental benefits. If set-aside becomes one of the centrepieces of the eventual Community reform programme, we shall wish to ensure that it is closely associated with environmental objectives.
Mr. Marland : When studying the woodland options, will my hon. Friend remember that we need to find ways of improving the environment and habitat of wildlife and of putting more money into the farmer's pocket, rather than that of the store owner? Will he consider the possibility of encouraging farmers to care for existing woodland, a great deal of which, up and down the country, is being seriously neglected?
Mr. Curry : I thought that my hon. Friend was on the point of painting some especially enchanting woodland options, but I shall certainly bear in mind the points that he made when we examine the scheme.
Column 422
Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
4. Mr. Allen McKay : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : Organophosphorous sheep dipare approved under the Medicines Act 1968 for the effective control of sheep scab. Products are currently being reviewed and any that do not meet up-to-date safety standards will have their licences withdrawn.
Mr. McKay : Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern about the use of organophosphorous sheep dips? As alternatives exist, what is the Minister doing to promote their use?
Mr. Maclean : Of course, I am aware of the concern about the use of sheep dips. Two organophosphorous sheep dips and one alternative are currently available. We should be very happy if anyone were to come to us for approval with a new sheep dip that did not contain those materials, provided that the new dip met all other standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Such dips, which contain potent materials, are necessary to deal with the nasty problem of sheep scab. That is why there are strict warnings on the labels and a scheme to encourage anyone who is adversely affected to report it to our independent advisory committee.
Mr. Speller : Although I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the vital need for strong sheep dips, is he aware of the fear that when the beast is driven through the dip, it becomes agitated and its pores open? It thus ingests a certain amount of the dip within the fabric of the body. Has the Minister anything to say about the safety of those dips in such circumstances?
Mr. Maclean : When the veterinary products committee reviews sheep dips, it will keep in mind the problem of whether any residue is left on the animal or ingested into its system. The official leaflet that we publish on the control of sheep scab gives specific safety instructions to farmers to ensure that the animals have been rested before they go through the sheep dip so that they are not sweaty, their pores are not open and they are in prime condition.
Agriculture Reform
5. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet EC Agriculture Ministers to discuss EC agricultural reform.
Mr. Gummer : At the Agriculture Council on 4 and 5 March.
Mr. Griffiths : When the Minister goes to Brussels, will he bear in mind the urgent need for change, given that the GATT round has restarted? Will he consider the information, which I imagine was passed to him by the director general of the Nature Conservancy Council, that 80 per cent. of damage to sites of special scientific interest in Britain is caused by bad farming? Will he make it an urgent priority in the reform of the common agricultural policy to introduce green premia along the lines advocated by the Labour party?
Column 423
Mr. Gummer : The Labour party's proposals have not gained much support outside the Labour party. They would certainly not be acceptable in the European Community and do not meet most of our requirements. However, at the National Farmers Union I spoke about the environmental changes that we should make and which I consider a necessary part of CAP reform. I hope that we shall reform the CAP to make it better. Some of the suggestions that have been made would make it decidedly worse. We need to ensure that farmers can do their two jobs--produce the food that we need and look after the land that we care about.Mr. Marlow : Given that within the European Community Britain is one of the least self-sufficient countries in terms of food and agricultural produce, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to give a simple undertaking to the House today that he will not agree to anything coming out of Brussels which will reduce still further our self-sufficiency in food and agricultural produce?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend is both a farmer and someone who takes a great deal of interest in farming, but it is an odd view of our membership of the European Community--or of the world community--that we should be self-sufficient in everything. The German Government took such an autarkic view in the past. It would not commend itself to democrats or anyone with a liberal view of trade.
Mr. John D. Taylor : In the ongoing debate on common agricultural policy reform it has been suggested that only large farms are economic and efficient. Will the Minister take this opportunity to refute that suggestion? Does he accept that many smaller farms in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are equally efficient? Is not there something wrong with the CAP when 80 per cent. of funds available are directed to only 20 per cent. of farmers?
Mr. Gummer : I do not know of many farms in the United Kingdom that could not be classified as family farms. The idea that a family farm must have less than about 30 acres is nonsense. Some family farms hold and look after four or five families and that is how British agriculture has generally developed. The real distinction to make is between farms of a realistic size that are able to support a family and farms that we know perfectly well cannot produce an acceptable income as standards rise in countries such as Portugal, which traditionally have had tiny farms. We want to help such farms to reach a more sensible base so that they can support the people who run them.
Farming in this country is efficient and very much able to compete. I am determined that it should be able to continue to do so. As 80 per cent. of production is achieved by 20 per cent. of farms covering nearly 70 per cent. of the land area, it is not surprising that they receive 80 per cent. of the support.
Mr. Ralph Howell : I was most disappointed with the reply from my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about self-sufficiency. Would not it be in the interests of this country and every other to be as self-sufficient as possible in the production of food? Will my right hon. Friend undertake a study to find out the rate of self-sufficiency in
Column 424
Britain and Europe and compare it with American self-sufficiency? It seems that the GATT round is all about the United States hogging world trade.Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend produces wheat, a product which we could go on producing in such amounts only if we were able to export a large proportion of it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want his wheat production to be cut because other countries wanted to be self-sufficient in its production. The economic base that he proposes is one that I should not like to be applied throughout the industry. Would he suggest the same for coal or computers? That would destroy any progress and prosperity in the world.
Dr. David Clark : May I state the Labour party's agreement with the Minister's objectives for CAP reform as outlined in his answer to Question 1? However, we believe that the reform must be cash-limited. It is absolutely indefensible that the British taxpayer and consumer currently pays £13.5 million a day to support the common agricultural policy. Why is the Minister so dismissive of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), along Labour party lines, for the payment of a green premium? I know that the Minister likes the idea--why will not he discuss it with us and acknowledge that the green premium not only gives us environmentally sensitive farming, but provides us with a sensible agricultural support system and is more economical to the consumer and the farmer?
Mr. Gummer : I happen to think that the policy as outlined is not as good as a range of other policies that we have adumbrated and that is why I do not wish to implement it. I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about supporting our policy. I hope that that means that he will tell his Front-Bench colleagues that it is no longer Labour party policy to support the MacSharry plans.
Mr. Moate : How can my right hon. Friend, of all people, be so non- communautaire as to attack the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for not eating British sausages? Will my right hon. Friend follow the logic of his remarks and urge the reform of the CAP so that production policies are at last returned to a national basis and the role of the European Commission is reduced to ensuring fair trade between member states? Does he agree that we are now paying £25,000 direct agricultural support for every full-time farmer and that we could get much better results on a national basis?
Mr. Gummer : I am happy to say that the CAP is a basis of our membership of the European Community. I am wholly in favour of that membership and I support the CAP. I intend to get it reformed so that it does more good for Britain, for British farmers and for the farmers of the rest of Europe. I do not find it uncommunautaire to say that as British sausages are the best in Europe, they should be eaten by British people ; I am sorry that the Labour party spokesman for agriculture says that he will not eat them.
Column 425
Animal Diseases
7. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Veterinary Association to discuss the control of animal diseases in the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Maclean : My ministerial colleagues and I meet the BVA periodically, most recently on 13 December 1990, as do my officials, to discuss a range of subjects including animal disease control.
Mr. Dunnachie : Has the Minister noted what Mr. John Logie wrote in Farmers Weekly of 25 January? Mr. Logie is a leading member of the Scottish knackery industry and is greatly concerned about the number of knackeries that are closing in Britain. In particular, there is great concern about the number of farmers leaving animal carcases to rot in the countryside. Mr. Logie wrote :
"It is really beyond belief that the Government is ignoring what could become a major health hazard. It would be terrible if the public were poisoned before something is done."
Does the Minister agree that this is a major concern for human and animal health?
Mr. Maclean : Let us get one thing straight from the start. There would be no knacker industry in Britain if the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), had not pulled off a marvellous coup in Brussels just before Christmas, when he protected the whole knacker industry for at least the next five years. My Department is taking strenuous action to ensure that there are alternative systems available. The knacker industry can continue collecting dead animals. We are giving help and advice to farmers on other disposal methods. We are spending £800 million per year in general support for the livestock industry. I do not think it reasonable to ask the taxpayer to spend any more money on specific subsidies to farmers. We shall take strenuous action against anyone dumping animals by the roadside.
Mr. Harris : While accepting a lot of what my hon. Friend said about the knacker industry, may I ask him to accept that there is great concern among veterinary surgeons, particularly in Cornwall, about the disposal of fallen animals and animals that have disease? Is my hon. Friend further aware of the concern about the future of the Polwheal veterinary investigation service station which covers the whole of Cornwall? May we have an assurance that that station is not under threat, as rumours suggest?
Mr. Maclean : I cannot deal with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question because the matter is under review. We are aware of the concern in some sections of the agriculture and knacker industries. We have had extensive discussions with knackermen and renderers. There are still outlets for the materials involved if farmers wish to use them. Alternative disposal systems are available and, as I said earlier, only the action taken by the Government has prevented the EC from closing down the whole knacker industry.
Intervention Stores
8. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current amounts of foodstuffs held in EC and non-EC intervention stores in the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.
Column 426
Mr. Curry : A table showing intervention and private storage stocks in the EC and United Kingdom is deposited monthly in the House of Commons Library. Latest figures were tabled on 19 February.
Mr. Skinner : Will the Minister admit that, despite all the set- aside schemes and attempts to run down the industry, surpluses in intervention stocks are increasing again? Does he agree that at a time when every family is paying £16 a week to prop up the common agricultural policy, and when we have the cock-eyed MacSharry proposals before us that will make matters worse, it would make more sense if those stocks of food found their way into empty bellies in the third world instead of being wasted as they are now?
Mr. Curry : First, the House should note that this is one of the rare occasions on which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agrees with his Front Bench, in his condemnation of the MacSharry proposals. His suggestion that European surpluses should be sent to the third world would do positive damage to the third world by simply wiping out local production. To suggest getting rid of our surpluses by using the third world as a dustbin does no good to European agriculture and would be a major disservice to the third world.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : When will my hon. Friend discover what ought to be self-evident--that only by a quota policy can we ensure that agricultural support goes to the producers of food, not to the storers of food or the exporters of subsidised food?
Mr. Curry : What I have discovered is that we must have an agricultural policy that is closer to the marketplace and the consumer. I am afraid that the formula that my hon. Friend suggests would have precisely the opposite effect.
Mr. Ron Davies : We all agree that a system of agricultural support that does not benefit producers or consumers but rewards people who store food, people who destroy food and people who dump food cannot be justified and has to be reformed. We know which reforms the Government oppose. Why are they so coy about giving details of the reforms that they would like to see?
Mr. Curry : I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the National Farmers Union. It spells out clearly what we have said for years-- that farming must get closer to the marketplace and that institutional prices have to come down. We have to make sure that farming is compatible with the environment and that its job is to supply what people want to eat. There is nothing very original about that. It is common sense, and common sense is the hallmark of the Goverment's policies.
GATT
9. Mr. Knapman : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet his EC counterparts to discuss the Community's attitude towards agricultural measures in the context of the GATT round talks.
Mr. Gummer : The Agriculture Council regularly reviews progress in the GATT negotiations, and I expect it to do so on 4 and 5 March.
Column 427
Mr. Knapman : My right hon. Friend is a doughty fighter in Europe for British industry. He has heard today the many concerns about the cost, waste, fraud and protectionism associated with the present CAP. Does he agree that there should be an early resumption of the GATT round of talks? Perhaps it is time for delegates to be locked in a room until they reach agreement.Mr. Gummer : I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the announcement today that resumption looks likely is very encouraging. I wholly agree that we shall get a solution to the GATT round only if those participating stop addressing themselves to the columns of newspapers and sit down in a conference room at a table from which they do not get up until they have found a solution.
Mr. Cryer : What influence can the Minister bring to bear on the EEC to make sure that there is a resolution of the conflict in the GATT round? As he well knows, the GATT round of talks is crucial not only to agriculture but to other industries, notably the textile industry which in Bradford in my constituency faces difficulties because of high interest rates. The uncertainty of the GATT round indicates a difficult and dark future. Can the Minister tell the House what influence, if any, he can and will bring to bear in the European Community?
Mr. Gummer : I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I think that he will agree that it is the British attitude which has very much won the support of the European Community. It is we who got the Community to put its proposals to the GATT round. We have kept the Community at that negotiating table and we have supported the Commission in fighting to negotiate on those terms. We have also stopped those in the Community who wish to resile from those negotiations from succeeding. Britain can say that the successes so far are based upon British initiative and support.
Mr. Bellingham : Is the Minister aware that the CAP is lurching from crisis to crisis? Is he also aware that the future will be very bleak indeed when the EEC is extended by Poland and Hungary coming in, which will lead to even greater pressures on the CAP? Is he really telling the House that he has not looked at the possibility of withdrawing completely from it and repatriating our agricultural payments?
Mr. Speaker : Order. The question is about GATT, not CAP.
Mr. Maclean : Our way to deal with the CAP is through the GATT round, because the GATT round will enable us to liberalise trade much more widely. The common agricultural policy is part of the basis of the European Community. We need to reform it and to change it, but not to suggest that there can be a Europe which does not have a common agricultural policy, which would be to run totally contrary to the facts of the matter.
Food Poisoning
10. Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss methods of reducing food poisoning incidents in the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.
Column 428
Mr. Maclean : My right hon. Friend met consumer organisations, including the Consumers Association, yesterday as part of a series of regular meetings to discuss policy issues, including food safety matters.
Mr. Marshall : Is the Minister aware that there is general concern about the increase in food poisoning, as illustrated by a sixfold increase in the Trent region in the past seven years? Does he agree that local authority environmental health officers have an important part to play in combating food poisoning, but that their task is being made far more difficult by an insufficiency of financial resources?
Mr. Maclean : I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking a rather simplistic approach to combating food poisoning. We have a whole host of measures to deal with food poisoning, not least the Food Safety Act which came into effect on 1 January this year. The Act gives widely and greatly increased powers to environmental health officers and others to implement the law without a huge increase in resources being necessary, but we have also provided an extra £30 million for local authorities to help enforce the Food Safety Act.
| Next Section
| Home Page |