| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Meat Products (Labelling)
4. Mr. Cousins: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require mechanically recovered meat material to be separately and specifically labelled in food products. [2894]
Mr. Rooker: United Kingdom regulators already believe that existing food labelling rules require that mechanically recovered meat products should be labelled separately. If there is any doubt about that, there has already been one successful prosecution, so the matter has been upheld by the British courts. Recently, we have succeeded in getting the rest of Europe to go along with us, so we are in the lead on this.
Mr. Cousins: I cheerfully welcome my hon. Friend to his new position.
Does my hon. Friend agree that consumers wish to know what they eat, and that they do not know in every case that the meat that they eat has been produced by firing high-pressure water jets at animal carcases, to produce what the Government Food Standards Committee once described as
"a highly coloured slurry or emulsion"?
19 Jun 1997 : Column 443
-
This must be made absolutely clear and it must not be left entirely to local authorities such as Shropshire and Somerset to carry out the necessary enforcement action.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Minister tell us how a consumer knows that a product does not come from meat, particularly beef, being produced in other countries, which import into this country material that could contain traces of BSE, defeating the things that we are already doing to ensure that BSE is kept out of the food chain?
Mr. Rooker: We cannot do that at the moment because the previous Government did not take any action to end the problem. This Government are taking action. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if action is not agreed by the European Union by 22 July, the regulations and orders will be brought to the House forthwith.
Mr. Pickthall: While my hon. Friend is considering the labelling of food products, will he consider the labelling of products that contain genetically modified ingredients and ensure that the consumer is given the choice as to whether to consume such ingredients?
Mr. Rooker: It has already been done and negotiators in Brussels have received new instructions from the Government and this Department. If a food product may contain genetically modified material, the label will have to say so because producers refuse to separate the crop ingredients.
Organic Farming
5. Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the organic farming sector. [2895]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We want to encourage an expansion of organic production and are considering the best ways of achieving that.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his encouragement. Is he aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, only 0.1 per cent. of land in England is farmed organically, which compares unfavourably with other European countries--for example, in Austria, the figure is 8 per cent.--and that the previous Government's investment to promote organic farming was lamentable in the extreme?
Will the Minister increase the amount of money allocated by the Government to improve and encourage organic farming? Will he ensure that home demand is met by this country, because currently it is being met by imports, which is disadvantageous for consumers and farmers?
Mr. Morley:
The actual figure for production is 0.3 per cent. Nevertheless, it is very low compared with the European average. The Government want to
Mr. Flynn:
I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Although the increase in organic farming is welcome, does it not still mean that the other type of farming--which could be correctly labelled chemical farming--is responsible for the majority of our farm products? When looking at the cost of products from organic farms, why do we not take into account the cost of products from chemical farms--which should be measured not just immediately in the marketplace, but over hundreds, if not thousands of years in the enormous damage that pesticides and other chemicals do to our environment?
Mr. Morley:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. With intensive agriculture, the cost of inputs is important for both the long-term environmental consequences and the cost of production that farmers have to bear. The organic sector has an important role and we are encouraging a reduced use of inputs such as integrated crop management.
Mr. Boswell:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. Given the efforts of his hon. Friends, over a long time and through a characteristic drip feed, to belittle the real efforts made by Conservative Ministers to support organic farming, including expenditure of more than £1 million a year and the launch last year of the organic conversion information service, will the Minister tell the House how much extra funding his Department will make available for organic farming, where the money will be found and when?
Mr. Morley:
The current year's budget for organic conversion is more than £800,000. There is also £1 million available for research and development in the organic sector. The amount available for conversion will increase in the next financial year--that is already in the Department's budget. It is an important matter.
It is fair to point out that the take-up of funds under the Conservative Government was lower than the amount available because of the level of conversion grants. It is an issue that we are considering in our response to the Select Committee report.
6. Mr. Whittingdale:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the regulations governing the production of New York dressed poultry. [2896]
Mr. Rooker:
We have received a number of representations about the end of the three-year phase-out of the derogation from the regulations. The prohibition on the sale of uneviscerated poultry from licensed premises will stand. I have checked on the name--in Birmingham we call it, "Not yet dressed poultry."
Mr. Whittingdale:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the ban on the sale of New York dressed poultry from
Mr. Rooker:
There is absolutely no chance of a further derogation. If the hon. Gentleman reads column 219 of yesterday's Hansard, he will see that I am looking at the regulations on unlicensed premises. It is a health hazard and we need to check it out.
7. Mr. Paterson:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by the Government to have the beef ban lifted as quickly as possible. [2897]
Dr. John Cunningham:
The Prime Minister and I have held discussions with the President of the European Commission and Commissioners Fischler and Bonino on how to have the export ban lifted as quickly as possible. They have been constructive and helpful. We are also considering, in consultation with the Commission, what other options the Florence agreement has to offer for resuming exports.
Mr. Paterson:
Does the Minister understand that the position is now desperate? Yesterday, prices in Oswestry and Market Drayton hit a 16-year low, bumping around the 90p mark. He cannot keep hiding behind the actions of the previous Government--[Interruption.] Can I ask on behalf of my constituents that the Minister takes responsibility and gives us a clear date by which that iniquitous ban will be lifted?
Dr. Cunningham:
If the hon. Gentleman does not learn quickly that that type of nonsense is of no help to his constituents, he probably will not be an hon. Member after the next general election. Does he really expect that, in seven weeks, the Government could have undone the untold damage inflicted by previous Conservative Ministers on the British beef industry? If he believes that, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. We have attempted quickly to re-establish sensible working relationships with the Commission and the European Parliament, and we are pressing ahead as quickly as possible on the issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent beef farmers, and I do not need any lessons from him about the damage that has been inflicted on them because of 18 years of Conservative government.
Mr. Charles Kennedy:
The Minister could be forgiven--although this is only his second outing at the Dispatch Box; yesterday he dealt with the quota hopping issue, and today he dealt with the question from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)--for thinking that he has already heard it all about his departmental administration. Given the on-going and inherited crisis in the beef industry, however, may I press him on one constructive point, which has found favour within the National Farmers Union--the position of calves born after 1 August 1996 and that are a minimum of six months old? Is there some mechanism for
Dr. Cunningham:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his much more rational contribution to a serious problem. He and the NFU are correct on that point, about which I have had discussions with Sir David Naish. I have had discussions on the same point with Commissioner Fischler--with whom, only today, I once again discussed the issues on the telephone. We are pressing ahead with talks about a born-after scheme, as we are pressing ahead with the selective cull--which the previous Administration neglected to do. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is expediting a cattle traceability scheme. All those actions must be taken to satisfy European Union legislation before there is any hope of having the ban lifted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his principal point, and we are working on it.
Mr. Hogg:
The right hon. Gentleman will know that, during the past 18 months, I was much criticised for not securing a timetable. Will he confirm that he has had many discussions with the Commissioners and with his fellow Ministers in Europe? Will he also confirm that he himself has achieved no timetable, no bankable assurances and--if he is absolutely honest with the House--no progress of any kind?
Dr. Cunningham:
Yes, I can confirm that--literally from the Government's first days--I have had a whole series of meetings. Moreover, I have not sought a timetable, because too many problems have been left outstanding by the right hon. and learned Gentleman--including his failure to fulfil effectively the terms and conditions of the Florence agreement, which the former Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary signed up to; his failure properly to implement the selective cull; and his failure to develop an effective cattle traceability scheme. All those problems are a result of his stewardship. They were unresolved when we took office, and it is absurd to think that we could immediately go to Brussels and demand a date for lifting the ban.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |