| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: I did notice that. The fact that the G8 statement was agreed, albeit in elliptical terms, made it clear that we were sure about where this began. That was an important step forward in itself. As for Iran, time and again, it must be reminded of the fact that the world has no aggressive intent towards it, but if it exports aggression, it is very hard for us not to confront that reality. Underneath it is the wider issue that I have talked about, but the fact that the G8 statement was agreed and that the G8 plus 5 in effect endorsed it was significant.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would agree that if there is to be long-term stability in the middle east, something that must change is the position of Lebanon. That state has been enfeebled by its neighbours, Syria and Israel, for their own misguided purposes which prevent a long-term solution. What can be done to strengthen the Government in Beirut to make sure that Lebanon can deal with the problem of Hezbollah?
The Prime Minister: The point that my right hon. Friend is making is exactly the reason for resolution 1559. The only way, in the end, in which a state makes sure that it is in charge is for it to be in charge of force within the country. The problem is that Hezbollah militias are a constant thorn in the side of Lebanon, preventing that situation from being realised, which is why the resolution was passed. This time, we must make sure that it is implemented.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): The Prime Minister has made some unequivocal statements this afternoon about Syria. Is he contemplating the recall of our ambassador to London for consultation, and will he use his much improved relations with the regime in Libya to urge Colonel Gaddafi to use his influence on Hezbollah to rein in its forces?
The Prime Minister: We have no plans to recall our ambassador, but yes, we are using our relationships with all the different Arab countries to make sure that pressure is put on Syria and Iran. It was interesting to see the statements that emanated from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries including, I think, Egypt, as they were surprisingly firm in their intent towards what those two countries are doing.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): There is no doubt that the
present crisis started with the illegal kidnap of one Israeli soldier,
but many Members on both sides of the House believe that the Israeli
response, which took out electric and water supplies for tens of
thousands of people in Gaza, was an act of disproportionality that led
events to spiral out of control. The Palestinian
Authority is not in a position readily to restore those services, so can
my right hon. Friend talk to President Abbas about ways in which we
could help to restore electric and water supplies, as their absence
endangers the health and lives of many thousands of people? Can we
redouble our political commitment to ensure that those supplies are
never destroyed again?
The Prime Minister: Of course, we put a big reconstruction effort into the Palestinian Authority. My hon. Friend is right that it is terrible when infrastructure is destroyed in that way. The problem in the end is that when the disengagement from Gaza took place, my idea—and others had it too—was that the international community would move in behind a Palestinian Authority that was growing in effectiveness, with increasing control over its own security forces, thus creating the conditions in which private investment could be made. Indeed, a series of people were lined up, waiting to go in and invest. It is not what happened. Once the immediate situation calms, we must go back and work out with the Palestinian Authority a proper plan that allows that Authority to take charge of its own destiny. Rather as with Lebanon but on a much greater scale, there are people who are operating outside the proper control of the authority, whose purpose is often to disrupt the very progress that we want to make.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): The Prime Minister said that there would be a review of progress on Africa at the G8 summit in 2007. Can we make it clear to our G8 colleagues that the test of progress in 2007 is the extent to which G8 members have delivered on the promises that they made at Gleneagles in 2005? Unless we hold to that process, the danger is that after the modest indications at this summit, Africa will slip off the agenda altogether?
The Prime Minister: Obviously that is a danger, but I do not think it will happen. Germany has made it clear that for next year’s summit Africa will be a major topic, and Germany will review the progress again. We will set out the milestones for the next year. There is sufficient strength in civic society for us to keep people up to the mark, and we intend to use all our efforts to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can call all the Members standing, but they must be brief.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I will be brief. Twenty years after Chernobyl, was there any discussion of the report of the nuclear safety and security group, and what conclusions did the leaders reach?
The Prime Minister: Yes, in the conclusions there is discussion about nuclear safety and what can be done in relation to it. It was agreed that we need to co-operate not just on safety, but on the decommissioning of nuclear waste and the development of the new generation of nuclear power stations.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Given that much sympathy has been expressed for the Government of Lebanon as being helpless to control Hezbollah, does the Prime Minister have any indication that the Government of Lebanon have asked for assistance from the international community to help them to do so?
The Prime Minister: I have spoken to the Prime Minister of Lebanon. I think Lebanon is looking for international help. The precise way in which that is used and the implications for its own armed forces are matters for debate. I believe the Prime Minister of Lebanon wants to do the right thing. The people around him are desperate for some stability in their country and they feel very angry that they are caught in the present situation. We should be helping them in any way we can.
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): I welcome the news about the education for Africa initiative. On the middle east, we learned yesterday that the intention of Israel is to create an unmanned buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Will that do anything other than bring more problems to that region? Will my right hon. Friend please make a case for not doing that?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend’s comments underline the need at least to debate seriously the idea of an international force there.
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Members across the House will welcome the report from the Prime Minister that the G8 recognise the need for a goal to help stabilise climate change emissions. Can the Prime Minister give us some idea when he hopes that will be concluded—he mentioned that progress would go ahead in Mexico—and what type of goal he would like to see?
The Prime Minister: The goal should be a stabilisation of the world’s climate and temperature. I do not know how far the G8 plus 5 dialogue in Mexico will move us forward, but there is now agreement in principle that such a framework should be developed.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is neither excuse nor justification for rocket attacks, whether on Ashkelon or Haifa, but I find his comment that Israel has not defaulted on its road map obligations astonishing. Surely he is aware that long before Hamas was elected, and while Hamas was on ceasefire for the best part of a year, Israel was building a wall in Palestinian territory and expanding illegal settlements. What is that, if not defaulting on its road map obligations?
The
Prime Minister: I understand exactly why my hon. Friend
says that, but the whole purpose of the road map was to create a series
of mutual obligations. On settlements, he is absolutely right and we
have made our position clear on them all the time. In the end,
settlements can be a block to the eventual resolution of this dispute.
But the reason why we were not on the road map was that people kept
coming in—into the territory of Israel—and killing
innocent Israeli
civilians. So what I say to my hon. Friend, as I would say to others, is
that the only way that this situation will be unwound is by getting
back to the mutual obligations that exist for both sides in the road
map.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Some moments ago, the Prime Minister said, “We are doing everything we can.” Has he had a personal conversation with President Assad of Syria, and if not, why not, given that the Government are doing everything they can?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that a personal conversation between me and President Assad will do a great deal of good, if I may respectfully say so. I think that Syria knows perfectly well what is required of it, and the only question is whether it wants to do it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): We all obviously regret all the violence that is taking place in the region. The Prime Minister conceded that the Israeli actions in Lebanon and Gaza were disproportionate; if Israel carries on destroying the airport, roads, water supplies, electricity plant and a lot of civilian infrastructure—and killing civilians fleeing for their lives—what sanctions does he think should be applied against Israel to persuade it to desist from the expansionist intentions that it seems to be pursuing?
The Prime Minister: The only way to stop what I want to see stopped—the killing of innocent civilians—is through the process that we describe in our statement. Honestly, that is the only realistic way that we will do that.
Points of Order
4.36 pm
Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): On apoint of order, Mr. Speaker. Outside the Palace of Westminster today there is a large delegation of my constituents, who have come to demonstrate their opposition to the closure of the Hemel Hempstead hospital. The temperature outside is more than100 degrees, and with Westminster Hall closed there are few facilities within the Palace to allow them to come in from the excessive heat. Until the new visitor centre is open, can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, on how we can accommodate visitors to the Palace, such as my constituents, which is surely what we all want to do?
Mr. Speaker: Sorry, I did not pick up the hon. Gentleman’s last point; I was being advised. I believe that he was asking about visitors; did he mention the visitor centre?
Mike Penning: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am trying to say is that until the visitor centre is complete, and with Westminster Hall completely out of action, what facilities are there for our constituents when they come to Parliament to perform their democratic right of lobbying this House against things that they are not happy about?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that we have a difficulty in that respect. The hon. Gentleman realises that the great hall of Westminster is like a building site. I visited it last week, and things are difficult for visitors at present.
The hon. Gentleman
mentioned people who are demonstrating outside. They have the
democratic right to come to Parliament and express their concerns to
Members. The temperatures outside are exceptional; I have never
experienced such temperatures in the 27 years that I have been coming
to London every week—it was exceptionally warm when I was out
at
8 o’clock this morning. I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to look
into the possibility of at least making available water
facilities—bottled water or cool water, perhaps—because
it is unreasonable to expect people to stand in such heat. I will
instruct the Serjeant at Arms to see what we can do, at the very least
to find water for visitors.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a written statement issued today, the Minister for Housing and Planning made it clear that home condition reports—the central part of the Government’s proposed home information packs—will be withdrawn; they will no longer be made mandatory. A flagship element of the Government’s Housing Act 2004 has been scuttled by Ministers, and yet the Minister concerned has not come to the Dispatch Box to explain why she has retreated under fire. Is that not a gross discourtesy to the House?
Mr. Speaker: The good news is that that will be debated tomorrow.
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that yesterday the Minister with responsibility for the police accused me of misleading my constituents on the subject of the cost of police mergers. Can you advise me on how I might reverse that outrageous slur made in this House?
Mr. Speaker: I was present then, and the Minister concerned did refer to the hon. Gentleman’s misleading his constituents outside Parliament. My problem is that I have enough to do here in Parliament, without worrying about the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am sure that he will find a way to put the record right. The Minister concerned is a reasonable person and he will —[Interruption.] He is very reasonable. He comes from good Donegal stock, and he will listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Food Labelling
4.40 pm
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a uniform system for the labelling of food and drinks retailed in England and Wales to show the quantity of salt, sugar and fats they contain; and for connected purposes.
The Department of Health survey for England revealed that incidents of obesity have more than trebled in the past 20 years. For adults, that represents a rise of between 14 and 16 per cent., based on body mass index calculations for obesity. The rising obesity figures for children revealed by the survey for that period are even more alarming. While there was little change between 1974 and 1984, between 1984 and 1994 the prevalence of obesity increased to 1.7 per cent. of boys and 2.6 per cent. of girls. By 2002, those figures had risen to the extent that 5.5 per cent. of boys and7.2 per cent. of girls in England aged two to 15 years were categorised as obese.
Projecting these figures forward 15 years—assuming that incidents of obesity continue to increase steadily—it is shockingly estimated that one third of adults in England will be obese by 2020. A Royal College of Physicians report estimates that, if the rapid acceleration in childhood obesity that we have witnessed continues, incidents of obesity in children could rise above 50 per cent. by 2020.
I could go on with these statistics, but bemoaning the state that we have got ourselves into will not bring about change and reverse the damage already done. That is why I am presenting this Bill, which seeks to provide just one measure that might help consumers in Britain to make healthier choices about the foods that they buy in a market flooded with pre-packaged, mass-produced foods with long lists of complex ingredients. A single format for simplified front-of-package nutrition information—giving the amounts of salt, sugar and fat contained in the product, combined with an interpretive element such as colour coding—would certainly bring about a positive change in the way that we shop and eat. Moreover, if such a scheme is not taken up voluntarily by the food manufacturing and retail industries, the Government ought to make provision to ensure that standards are enforceable.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West(Jim Dowd) said in his splendid Adjournment debate last week, the Health Select Committee’s inquiry into obesity, which reported in May 2004, is indeed its “magnum opus”. The report highlighted the growing prevalence of obesity in the UK and its effect on people’s health, and the consequent impact on the health service of increasing incidents of weight-related illnesses such as heart disease and type-2 diabetes. The Committee estimated that the associated costs are between £3.3 billion and £3.7 billion a year, and this figure will continue to rise unless urgent steps are taken.
Nutrition-based
advice pertaining to the calorie or fat content in foods can often be
misleading. For example, a product advertised as 90 per cent. fat-free
still contains 10 per cent. fat and could still be highin
calories and salt. Such promotional information
prevents consumers from making the informed decisions that I know the
Minister with responsibility for these matters wants them to be able to
make. A more transparent and yet still simplified system of nutrition
labelling would allow busy shoppers to make quick and informed
decisions about the foods that they buy, and enable them to make
comparisons with other products and
brands.
The FSA action plan on food promotions and children’s diets and the public health White Paper “Choosing Health” endorse the voluntary scheme for giving simplified nutrition information on the front of packaged foods. More than 2,600 consumers were surveyed in June 2005 in one-to-one interviews to test responses to and the general understanding of possible nutrition information formats. The two models that emerged on top were the multiple traffic-light system and colour-coded guideline daily amounts. It appears that the success of those two formats lies in the combination of colour coding and numerical information that makes them both accessible and informative to the busy consumer. It appears that96 per cent. of the people surveyed thought that simplified packaging would enable them to have better health choices. Ninety per cent. were able correctly to use the traffic-light format to identify the levels of sugar, fat and salt in the products. That is compared with only 69 per cent. for colour coded guideline daily amounts.
In support of those findings, in the National Consumer Council snap-shot survey consumers sighted front-of-pack signpost labelling as one of the top three easy methods, alongside healthier school meals, that would help people eat more healthily and would help companies to cut down on salt, sugar and fat in processed foods.
Furthermore, there is research such as that undertaken by the consumer magazine, Which?, which I applaud. It shows that a multiple traffic-light labelling format was the preferred option for the majority of consumers and the most easily accessible system for low-income people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds.
There is an inherent danger in labelling some foods as being healthy, with other foods in contrast being regarded as unhealthy. That gives a wrong impression. Recommendation 23 of the Health Select Committee’s report stated that the Government must accept that some foods that are extremely energy dense should be eaten in moderation by most people. It therefore recommends that legislation should be introduced to introduce a traffic-light system for labelling foods either red for high energy density, amber for medium energy density or green for low energy density, according to criteria devised by the FSA.
Recommendation 24 says that although several interventions for better food nutrition labelling have been made, the traffic-light system stands up to objective assessment, and if accepted widely across the industry would be a good measure of the impact of shifts in consumption across supermarkets and brands from relatively unhealthy to healthier food products.
I regret that a number of
companies seem not to support that recommendation, in contrast to
leading supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s and Waitrose. All
Members have received a letter from Danone,
Kellogg’s, Kraft, Nestlé and PepsiCo, which want to go for
the guideline daily amounts information labelling. I think that they
are wrong in that regard and I wonder why they are taking that stance.
Their approach is in contrast to the Health Select Committee report,
the Government’s recommendation and the FSA’s report. The
FSA believes that a consistent approach to food labelling will make it
easier for consumers to eat more healthily and encourage consumers to
look for and demand healthier food products, and incentivise businesses
to produce foods that are lower in salt, sugar and fat content. I
regret, for instance, that Tesco has gone ahead and done its own thing,
which I believe is not in the public interest. I applaud the way in
which Sainsbury’s supermarkets have introduced their own
multiple traffic-light scheme, or wheel of health , which works on the
principle of the FSA guidelines. Those symbols are now printed on the
front packaging of more than 2,100 Sainsbury products, including and
expanding on the recommendation list of items included by the FSA.
Research that has been undertaken by Sainsbury’s found that the
wheel of health had influenced the purchasing decisions of
consumers.
Regulations on food labelling standards are currently set at a European level. The proliferation of different formats of simplified nutrition labels is a concern for consumers and the food manufacturers and retail industries alike. On 12 July the European consumers’ organisation presented the European Commission with the conclusions of a multi-stakeholder discussion group that included representatives from national Governments, industry, retailers and academics. I certainly support those conclusions.
The FSA, supported by the NCC, Which? and the Health Committee, recommends that industry-wide adoption of the single front-of-pack signposting scheme should be voluntary, but it would be in favour of mandatory take-up should this initial approach fail. Should a voluntary scheme fail to find unanimity among retailers and manufacturers, I urge the Government to step in to ensure an end to consumer confusion over nutrition labelling. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Dr. Richard Taylor, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Sandra Gidley, Dr. Howard Stoate, Bob Russell, Jim Dowd, Charlotte Atkins, David Taylor, Mike Penning, Jeremy Corbyn and Dr. Doug Naysmith.
Food Labelling
Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a uniform system for the labelling of food and drinks retailed in England and Wales to show the quantity of salt, sugar and fats they contain; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 216].
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |