| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chope: Emma Bonino is one of the Commissioners--a temporary Commissioner who is about to lose her job, I think, although we are not sure about that. She said on behalf of the EU that there is no question of the beef ban ever being lifted. That sort of comment causes a number of people to think that provoking the United States into a trade war is on the agenda of some members of the EU, to assist them in their own protectionist objectives. I hope that that is not correct.
There is talk of temporary solutions. The report in the Financial Times, to which the Minister referred, gives us hope that the hormone-treated beef issue will not now result in any direct trade sanctions, at least until July, and we hope that it will be resolved before then.
Mr. Rooker:
Now that the hon. Gentleman has got on to the issue of hormone-treated beef, I invite him to confirm that the current position of the Conservative party is exactly the same as that which it took in government. It has changed its policy on genetic modification since then. We have continued the policy on hormone-treated beef because it is based on the science. I should like confirmation that the position remains the same as far as he is concerned.
Mr. Chope:
As the Minister knows, I was not a member of the previous Government; I was not even a Member of the House, so I will not get drawn into a discussion about that. I would support what Ministers have been saying about the importance of sound science, which is absolutely fundamental. If we are not committed to supporting sound science, any country in the world will be able to say, "We don't want your products because we've got some people who say that they do not really like them." That would be quite at odds with any principle of free trade, which Conservative Members promote very strongly.
Mr. Rooker:
I do not want to labour the point, but I recall that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government until 1992. The ban on hormone-treated beef has been in place for 10 years and he was a member of the Government when that ban was introduced on behalf of the EU. I am asking my question simply to avoid any doubt and because of the Conservative party's change of policy on genetic modification.
We take a different view from the rest of the EU on hormone-treated beef, but we have operated the policy as good members of the EU. We want to operate on the basis of sound science, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to say whether the Conservative party's position remains the same as when it was in government--that is all.
Mr. Chope:
If there was a change in Conservative party policy, the Minister would soon hear about it. I have set out the position as I understand it to be and I have nothing to add on that particular subject.
We are pleased that it looks as though some of the heat has been taken out of the hormone-treated beef issue. However, if we find in July that nothing much has been done to resolve the scientific issues and the United States has in the meantime drawn up a list of targeted firms--as the Minister has said, that might be announced in the next 10 days--I hope that the Government will not have allowed the EU to be as slack in preparing a contingency plan as it has been found to have been in respect of bananas. I condemn the EU and I condemn the Government for the part that they must have played or not have played in this; but let us learn something from the experience--if we are given a couple of months, we should draw up some sensible contingency plans.
Does the Minister think that the approach taken by the Government to hormone-treated beef--standing out from other members of the EU--will result in a differential regime for the imposition of sanctions? The Netherlands and Denmark publicly opposed the EU banana regime and the United States said that it would not introduce sanctions against them for what was effectively an EU decision. Have the Government had any intimation from the United States on whether that might be used as a precedent and on whether this country would be less vulnerable to sanctions than other member states because of the line that we are taking in the EU on hormone-treated beef?
Mr. David Drew (Stroud):
I am delighted to take part in this debate on an interesting and important topic; the politics of food creates considerable interest, if not alarm, among the wider population on occasions. Conservative Members seem to be suffering from collective amnesia about their role in the evolution of various food policies, but I do not want to waste time on that. No doubt the result of the change in policy will be put around in a brown envelope, like most Conservative policies at present.
We approach the debate with some trepidation. It is easy to raise alarms and, to be a little critical, although I agree generally with what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, some of it was on the alarmist side. This is an emotive subject. People are understandably worried by any accusations about links between this and that, and what may seem to be a perfectly good way to improve choice and the quality of our food can lead to alarming statements being made in the press, if nothing else. Nevertheless, we must recognise that consumer choice, if not paramount, is very important in this context. What we are discussing is the essence of why we engage in trade. It is through specialisation that we are able to obtain the best products from various parts of the world, and we must try to avoid any action that would prevent that from happening.
A chord has been struck. I feel strongly about this, as, I think, do others on both sides of the House. People feel that they have been disempowered by the way in which globalisation has made the providers of food unaccountable, in the sense that decisions are made not through the natural--dare I say, national--processthat most people want, but by unaccountable individuals in multinational companies, American agrochemical companies or other multinational companies in other parts of the world.
We are, in fact, particularly able to point the finger at American agrochemical multinationals. I make no apology for taking all possible opportunities to talk about genetically modified organisms. I hope that Ministers do not think that I will launch into a full-scale attack on them, but I do not think that we would be where we are today were it not for Monsanto's--in my view--dreadful and disastrous decision not to segregate soya, which has led to a lack of consumer confidence. Consumers feel that foodstuffs have been imposed on them.
I was glad to hear confirmation from Ministers that we are demanding consumer choice, as we always do. There should be segregation, and there should be effective labelling; but it is not an easy matter, because decisions are being made elsewhere. We are discussing an aspect of that today: we are discussing a further racheting up of the apparent ability to impose decisions from outside. I think that we are well within our rights to say what we feel about that. In this respect, I am thankful that we are part of the European Union, because we can make a much bigger impact as part of a group of nations than we could as an individual nation. Let us not fool ourselves: as an individual nation, we would find it much more difficult to restrain the multinationals from securing a global marketplace in which they can determine what is provided and at what price it is provided, and regulation can be undermined, if not circumvented.
Mr. Gray:
Does the hon. Gentleman favour the commercial planting of genetically modified crops, or not?
Mr. Drew:
My views may differ somewhat from those of the Government, but in terms of degree rather than perspective. I believe, at the moment, that the precautionary principle is such that the benefits of genetically modified organisms are not proven, although I see every reason to conduct more tests--for instance, by means of farm trials. The Government have upheld the view that we should not currently be allowing commercial exploitation--unlike the last Administration, who allowed more products through without the necessary monitoring and regulation, and without truly believing that people should have a choice. Labour Members will not take any lessons about licensing and regulations: we are doing things properly, and it is a pity that that did not happen before our election.
We understand that the international trading position presents another side of what most people are concerned about--their right to choose, to know what they are eating, to know that it is safe and wholesome and to know that they can obtain it in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. There is a very sad aspect of what has been happening. The debate provides me with an opportunity to say that, although we understand that the interests of different nations are likely to be paramount in
their decision making, we should all like to avoid disputes such as this if that is at all possible. We would not like it to be exaggerated, although that is always a danger in the lead-up to negotiations; but, more particularly, we do not want the matter to be subject to innuendo that could be taken out of context. That might lead to a much more serious situation.
Other hon. Members may, like me, have received a letter from the Food and Drink Federation stating that food and drink exports accounted for £732 million last year--slightly less than imports. I always think that those who cause problems by threatening retaliation may have more to lose than they stand to gain. Anyway, the letter listed the products that might be affected: beef, pork, poultry, tomatoes, onions, peaches, pears and, dare I say, chocolate. Such a degree of retaliation takes us on to the slippery slope leading to something that none of us wants--a full-scale trade war.
Everyone would lose out from such a trade war, but, as has been made clear by Conservative Members, those who would lose most are the smaller producers--the producers of specialist lines, who cannot diversify because their methods of production relate directly to their markets. We can only argue on behalf of producers, but, as we know from the banana controversy, the biggest loser is the third world. To an extent, we have been willing to fight alongside the third world to ensure that its countries have access to world markets. It is not right for large global companies, perhaps working through one Government or another, to be able to impose a different way in which products can reach the market if it is unfair, biased and clearly opposed to the greater access to the world market of third-world countries that most of us want.
That is linked to other issues, such as the multilateral agreement on investment. I was pleased to note that that had been kicked out initially; it may return in a different form, but I hope that its new form will enable us genuinely to believe that it is for the right purpose, and that investment streams will be made more accountable, rather than being driven by companies that are motivated by selfishness and are able to impose their will and influence the third world much more than is healthy.
We should improve the processes whereby we agree on the stabilisation of world trade. People may make suggestions about how we can learn from our mistakes. It has been alleged--I cannot confirm or deny the allegation--that, to an extent, the current problem has been caused by, in particular, the Americans, who have been testing World Trade Organisation processes to see how far the disputes mechanism can be pushed. If we take that allegation to its origins, we must ask who has been testing the process--and, again, we would tend to point the finger at some of the larger companies, which may feel that, if they get their way now, they may be given further opportunities in the future.
There is a lot to be played for. As the Government have said, we must cool this down. We must find a way of putting world trade back on track. If the dispute escalates, we shall all lose out, including those who are taking retaliatory action.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |