| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.30 am
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I support amendment (a), although, as I am no curmudgeon, I must point out that the Government have been responsive to many points made here and in the other place. They have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, but the amendment asks them to go one step further.
The amendment qualifies the definition of the interests of consumers in relation to food, a concept referred to throughout the Bill, notably in clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8. It defines the work of the agency in protecting the public from risk, developing policies, providing advice and information and obtaining, compiling and keeping under review such information. It is right that the agency should take account of the sourcing of food when considering those matters.
To persuade me that that should not be stated in the Bill, the Minister may suggest that it is unnecessary because the point is already covered. If that is so, why is amendment No. 25 felt necessary, as it, too, defines the terms within which advice should be given? Alternatively, the Minister may suggest that amendment (a) might prejudice the agency's work. I cannot accept that, as the amendment would provide an important adjunct to the agency's core work. A further suggestion might be that the amendment would not be in the interests of consumers, an idea with which I would have to differ most strongly. It is greatly in the interests of consumers that they should know the source of food. It is a happy coincidence that the interests of consumers and producers are the same in this case.
The Minister has mentioned the pig industry, but one of the major reasons for that industry's parlous state is the high welfare standards that prevail in the United Kingdom. Those standards are quite proper, but they are not matched in the pig industries of our principal competitors abroad, and our pig producers are therefore at a constant commercial disadvantage in the supermarkets if consumers cannot make a choice informed by knowledge of the source of the food and the conditions under which it was produced.
In the interests of consumers, producers and transparency, we should avoid the type of confusion on which there have been recent exchanges during Question Time. Earlier this month, I pointed out that St. Ivel Shape yoghurt--not a product that I buy regularly--is made in France while Carte D'or ice cream is made in Gloucester. How is the consumer supposed to understand that?
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. St. Ivel yoghurt is made in my constituency, at Wootton Bassett.
Mr. Heath:
St. Ivel yoghurt is made in many places, and the brand to which I have referred is made in France. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. It is a tragedy that even an hon. Member who represents the area where a product is made may not be aware that it is also sourced from another country, but that fact highlights the very difficulty that the consumer faces when he or she goes to the supermarket. I sometimes do the shopping, rather than sending a nanny to do it, and I, like many people, find labelling confusing.
If the Minister cannot respond adequately to these points, I fear that we shall support amendment (a), which is important to our primary producers.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East):
I wish to make two brief points following the convincing argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I believe in free trade, and it is terribly important that people should be told the truth.
I remember Members waving their Order Papers over the question of which ships were allowed to fish under the British quota. We all thought it was splendid, but now it is costing us a lot of money. I have a simple question for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Minister: are we allowed to do this sort of thing? Sadly, I find that in Parliament these days, there are many things that we would like to do but are not allowed to do because, if we did, we would be fined horrendous sums or put in the equivalent of a Euro-prison.
I shop in a store called Asda, of which hon. Members may have heard. I always intend to buy New Zealand lamb but, unfortunately, I am not allowed to, not because of labelling but because of National Farmers Union pressure. The NFU is so concerned about overproduction that we are not allowed to buy from New Zealand any more. That is sad because whenever we have been in trouble, our friends from New Zealand have always been there to help us.
I have a horrible feeling that our basic problem is overproduction, not labelling. There is so much food. We are producing more and more, but, sadly, people are eating less and less. I am told that the continentals eat 2 per cent. less every year. The crucial question is whether we are allowed to label continental food according to its origin.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very pro-British and made it abundantly clear that he did not want to buy any more French food. The trouble is that, as I understand it, we are not allowed to determine whether food comes from France, so it will be hard to help him. I hope that my hon. Friends will not end up in another horrible mess where we have to pay more Euro-fines. Let us find out whether we are entitled to label food as coming from France, Germany or Italy. I understand that, under a derogation, we are allowed to say whether something comes from Britain or outside the European Economic Community, but not to give people the opportunity of knowing which part of the EEC something comes from.
My point may seem minor, but bearing in mind the horrendous fines that we have had to pay and the undermining of our freedom to decide things in this House, before we do something that we know to be sound, sensible and reasonable and that would support a freedom, let us find out whether we are allowed to do it. One of the great tragedies in this House is that we spend a great deal of time talking about things that we are not allowed to do. We have debates on fishing or the age of homosexual consent, over which we have no power at all. Let us not make another blunder. Before taking the final plunge and approving this superb amendment, which was tabled for the best of reasons, let us find out if we can do it.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. In a previous
Not only do the public need to know, they have a right to know where their food was produced. While I am sure that the Government will try to tighten the present labelling regulations, if they stop short of showing the country of origin on the product, they will not be serving the public interest properly. In the same earlier debate, the Government said that on issues of animal welfare, Parliament had listened and legislated and reflected what public opinion wanted in the legislation. That was democracy at work--the people told us what they wanted; Parliament reacted accordingly and legislation followed.
At present, because there is heightened interest in food, the British people want to know the country of origin of the food that they eat. In other words, the same conditions apply. The same people who wanted meat to be produced from animals bred under higher welfare standards now want products to be labelled with the country of origin. Unless the Government intend to suspend the rules of democracy, they should accept the amendment.
Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin):
Interesting though it is to know the country of origin of the food on the shelves of our stores, what the consumer wants is an assurance that the food is fit to consume--whatever the country of origin. What assurances can my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give the House that any food--whether in the supermarkets or in the corner shop--meets those standards? That is the best way to give the consumer confidence that the food is fit to eat; it is also the best way to ensure that British farmers are competing on a level playing field.
Ms Quin:
I am not surprised that amendment (a) and amendment No. 25 have provoked a lively debate. I know full well that Members on both sides of the House take a keen interest in the issue of labelling. I understand and sympathise with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) when she introduced amendment (a). She and I are anxious to examine labels when we shop. Since taking on my present portfolio, I have become most concerned not only about labelling but about its accuracy, and about the problems caused by misleading labelling.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |