Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Food Safety

3. Mr. Bradshaw: What measures the Government are taking to ensure that the British public have confidence in his Department's statements about food safety. [12611]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Our clear priority is to put food safety first. We are looking towards the creation of an independent Food Standards Agency, which was a clear manifesto commitment, and we shall publish a White Paper very soon.

Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that consumer confidence in this country will be severely shaken if the World Trade Organisation succeeds in its current attempt to overthrow the European Union ban on imports of beef from America containing hormones that we all know cause cancer? Will he assure the House that he will join his colleagues in the European Union to fight the World Trade Organisation and the Americans tooth and nail?

Mr. Rooker: The World Trade Organisation rules allow Governments to choose the appropriate level of

6 Nov 1997 : Column 381

protection for their citizens, which is absolutely right. What they do not allow are restrictions on trade which are not scientifically justified or are in themselves discriminatory. The hormones case is still going through the disputes procedure. We shall be looking for an outcome that protects consumers and their rights while respecting the sound scientific principles on which the WTO rules are based, without which there would be international chaos.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that public health safety will be the primary object of the new food safety organisation, and that it will have its primary remit in the best scientific evidence that is available at the time?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to both questions is yes.

Mr. Dawson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the E. coli outbreak in my constituency of Lancaster and Wyre? The victims have fortunately recovered, and the firm involved has been completely exonerated and has operated in a very responsible manner. It seems that the problem related to the use of unpasteurised milk. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to future policy regarding the use of unpasteurised milk in cheese-making?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I am aware of the recent outbreak in my hon. Friend's constituency. The outbreak control team met this morning. It has carried out a risk assessment of the factory and its products and has decided that there is no justification for extending the action taken in respect of unpasteurised milk cheese to other cheeses produced by that factory. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Department of Health left for Lancashire this morning and should arrive there by early afternoon, although they are not part of the outbreak control team. I am moving to bring English policy on the drinking of raw, unpasteurised milk into line with that which has been in place in Scotland for many years, but I have no plans to do that in respect of cheese.

Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the Official Report of yesterday afternoon's Committee proceedings on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order? We looked carefully at the issue of fish safety and people's attitude to health issues relating to its consumption. Is the Minister aware that 293 square miles of the Moray firth have been banned to fishermen and that this dates from the first report of oil pollution on 28 August? At one point, it was 150 tonnes. It was then downgraded to 100 tonnes and subsequently moved up to 685 tonnes of oil pollution. It is sad that, in yesterday's Committee debate, the Government showed little sense of reality on the question of how to deal with long-term issues affecting co-operation by the oil and fishing industries to ensure that both industries are safe.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady raises an important point which was not dealt with by the Ministry at yesterday's meeting of the Committee. Nevertheless, I am aware of the general issues that she rightly raises and I will write to her on the detailed points.

6 Nov 1997 : Column 382

Battery Hens

4. Ann Clwyd: What steps he is taking to further the welfare of battery hens. [12612]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The welfare of laying hens is a matter of concern which needs to be resolved at EU level. This is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals to amend the current controls. We expect these amendments to recognise the need to plan the long-term phasing out of the conventional battery system.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend, with his commitment to animal welfare, of the cruel conditions in which battery hens live. They are unable to stretch their wings, to peck or to scratch, and they are not even able to make nests in which to lay their eggs. What action does he intend to take on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report, which calls for the phasing out of battery cages and for further research on alternatives to that very cruel method of raising hens?

Mr. Morley: The Government have welcomed the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on laying hens. We are also commissioning research into supporting alternative systems and dealing with the welfare problems of each system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address the issue during the UK presidency to seek improvements to battery systems in the short term.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in the welfare of animals and of battery hens in particular? Does he further agree that this must be a matter for the EU and that we must have a common standard throughout? Does he also agree that the answer to the welfare of hens in a battery system is down to good husbandry and that the number of eggs that are required in this country for catering and for private consumption cannot be supplied by free-range or barn systems? In addition, housewives cannot afford such eggs. Will he present a common-sense solution to the problem and ensure that, with good husbandry, the product can be afforded by the majority of Britain's families?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady is right to say that the issue must be approached on a Europe-wide basis; otherwise our producers would be undermined without welfare gain in relation to the eggs on shop shelves. Retailers such as Marks and Spencer have announced that they will no longer stock any eggs except those from free range systems. Undoubtedly consumer demand and quality assurance schemes from retailers are already driving change in that area.

Common Fisheries Policy

5. Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on the common fisheries policy. [12613]

Mr. Morley: I have received many recent representations on the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister do all he possibly can to reverse the decline of the inshore fishery? Is he aware that

6 Nov 1997 : Column 383

many fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea feel that sole and plaice quota has been lost to flag ships and that that imbalance has failed to be addressed by underpinning? Will he finally ensure that EC directive 2141/70 article 39(i) is adhered to, as it will help fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea and those people who eat the fish in Basildon?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Member makes a serious point about the pressures on the inshore fishing industry, and Ministers are committed to supporting that sector of the industry. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the discussions that, as he is aware, are taking place on a change towards fixed quota allocation the Government will ensure that the needs of the inshore industry are protected and recognised by continued underpinning of quota and, in relation to directive EC 2141/70, by support for the inshore industry through schemes such as PESCA and harbour grants. The industries in that area are eligible for such schemes. They can make an application, and of course we shall treat each application on its merits as part of our support for the fishing industry.

Mr. Andrew George: While I appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister at the recent meeting of European Ministers to ensure that the most humane methods are employed to prosecute various fisheries throughout Europe, will he recognise, as I do, that many fishermen have chosen to employ other methods which take them away from the quota system, and will he respond to requests that compensation be afforded to the very few tuna drift net fishermen who will be damaged by any measures to ban their fishery so as to assist them to retrain and invest in other forms of fishery and remain off quota?

Mr. Morley: At the Fisheries Council last week, I made it clear that, under the United Kingdom presidency, the British Government will progress with proposals which have been lying on the table since 1992 to phase out high seas drift nets in EU waters, especially because of the impact on dolphins and non-target species. I also said then that we realised that this would have an impact on those fishermen who are involved in that fishery, and of course their interests and needs will be taken into consideration. I have already received representations from Mike Townsend of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who has argued the interests of his members very strongly.

Mr. Jack: Will the Minister confirm that, due to the Prime Minister's failure in negotiating the Amsterdam treaty, that treaty contains no legal protection for British fishermen threatened as a result of quota hopping? Can he also confirm that what was negotiated in the form of an exchange of letters between Commission President Santer and the Prime Minister amounts in effect to nothing more than is already contained in category A licences as far as landings are concerned?

Can the Minister explain why, although he has been in conversation with the fishing industry since August about matters of enforcement and quota hopping, the industry is still waiting for a definitive statement of Government policy on these vital matters? Is that not a vivid illustration of the fact that his policy is a shambles?

Mr. Morley: The Conservative Government put forward totally bogus proposals to deal with quota

6 Nov 1997 : Column 384

hopping. They made proposals to try to deal with the issue in the intergovernmental conference, knowing that just one country could veto those proposals. Not only that, but not one other country supported the Government's position. We have made more progress to deal with quota hopping in six months than the Conservative Government made in their last decade in office. We shall make announcements about our policy on the fishing industry in due course, but we have been undertaking a proper consultation with the fishing industry to obtain its views and to involve it in decisions in a way that the previous Government failed to do.


Next Section

IndexHome Page