Food from Animal Clones
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Burrowes, Mr David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
† Davies, Geraint (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
† Eustice, George (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
† Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab)
Lammy, Mr David (Tottenham) (Lab)
† Lumley, Karen (Redditch) (Con)
† Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Parish, Neil (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
† Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
† Penrose, John (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
† Rees-Mogg, Jacob (North East Somerset) (Con)
John-Paul Flaherty, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
European Committee A
Tuesday 11 February 2014
[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]
Food from Animal Clones
2.30 pm
The Chair: I call upon a colleague who is present to make a brief explanatory statement about decisions regarding further evidence documents for this Committee.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): It is me. There was some confusion, because I am going to make a statement about why the European Scrutiny Committee has recommended for debate the issue of food produced from animal clones. I should add, as I was saying to colleagues, that that reflects the view of the Committee. However, I did not attend the meeting and its recommendation does not accord with my personal view. I shall make that clear in the debate.
The draft directive, which is the subject of the debate, would require member states to ensure that food produced from animal clones is not placed on the market. It would also oblige them to ensure that food of animal origin imported to the EU from third countries where food from clones can be legally placed on the market and exported, is only placed on the EU market where it can be established that it does not derive from animal clones.
Before turning to the specific grounds on which the European Scrutiny Committee has recommended a reasoned opinion on the draft directive, it might help if I explained the mechanism for national Parliaments to issue a reasoned opinion. The reasoned opinion procedure was introduced by the treaty of Lisbon and gives national Parliaments a mechanism for challenging a Commission legislative proposal on the grounds that it does not comply with subsidiarity, which is the principle that decisions should be taken as close to the citizen as possible.
National Parliaments have eight weeks from publication of a proposal to submit a reasoned opinion. If such opinions represent one third of all votes of national Parliaments, they constitute a “yellow card”, and the Commission must review its proposal. As at Monday 10 February, no other national Parliament has issued a reasoned opinion on this proposal.
The Government do not think the current proposal is necessary. They consider that if legislative action is to be taken at all, it should be taken consistently at EU level, particularly regarding imports, and they are also concerned that the UK should not be sidelined by objecting to the proposal and that it should not lose any influence over negotiation on the proposal.
The European Scrutiny Committee does not agree. It concluded that the proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission has failed to demonstrate that the legislation is necessary. On the contrary, there is existing relevant EU legislation; no suspected risk to human health; no commercial cloning
within the EU; no evidence of food from clones being imported into the EU; and there is the prospect of improved cloning techniques.Furthermore, the Commission has not shown that action by member states alone would be insufficient to deal with the prohibition of the marketing of foods from animal clones. There is no current or likely variance in action taken by member states. The Commission has simply recommended action because inconsistent action by member states, driven by adverse consumer perception, may arise in future.
The Commission’s claim that the proposed action would be better achieved at EU level is undermined by the disbenefits of such action, including a lack of enforceability; increased burdens on duty-holders; adverse impact on bilateral trade negotiations; and a possible challenge within the World Trade Organisation.
Finally, we are concerned about the Commission’s decision to combine its impact assessments on this and a related draft directive. This makes it difficult for national Parliaments to work out which, if any, of the justifying factors advanced by the Commission relate to the directive under discussion. This is particularly important as the draft directive is based on article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the so-called flexibility provision, and so requires careful subsidiarity analysis. On an associated point, we would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government have not taken a more robust approach to subsidiarity compliance on the proposal, particularly considering the sensitivities and implications of the article 352 TFEU legal base.
2.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for the opportunity to debate this important subject and for its helpful thoughts on the content of the Commission proposal, which the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) summarised in some detail. I do not propose to say too much at this point, because I want to give hon. Members the maximum amount of time to question me and discuss the issues before us, but I would like at least to begin by confirming that the Government share many of the Committee’s concerns. We are, however, keen to avoid being sidelined in the negotiations, as this may increase the risk of further unhelpful or unnecessary controls being agreed.
As we made clear at the outset, we remain to be convinced that this proposal is necessary, as there are already adequate protections in place when it comes to animal welfare and food safety. However, it is important that we should remain active in the negotiations, to influence the position with a view to stressing the need for any union policies on cloning to be proportionate and based on evidence. I found the Committee’s analysis in the draft reasoned opinion to be very interesting, and the Government support the Committee in exercising its duties under protocol 2 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
As the negotiations have not yet started, it is not clear if others share our views. However, in earlier negotiations on this subject there was support from most other member states and the European Parliament for far-reaching restrictions and prohibitions on animal cloning
for food production and food cloned from farm animals. It is, in our view, essential therefore that we participate fully and exert maximum influence in the negotiations on this and the two related proposals. I therefore look forward to this debate, which I think will be helpful when the negotiations on this dossier begin in earnest later this month through various working groups. Again, I congratulate the European Scrutiny Committee on bringing this before us. It is crucial that the Scrutiny Committee exercises its right under this protocol to raise concerns, as it has done, on subsidiarity.The Chair: We now have until 3.30 for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should be brief. It is open to any Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions. It is my usual practice to allow the Opposition spokesman three on the trot; then we will scatter wide and he, of course, will be part of that scattering.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Streeter. It is great to be under your stewardship again here this afternoon. I have only a couple of questions at the outset, before we come to the main debate. My first is: even though I recognise that this is essentially about subsidiarity today and the interpretation and application of that principle, what are the Minister’s views in terms of transparency of labelling on products from live cloned animals and products derived from cloned animals? That is a moot point for UK consumers.
George Eustice: One of the first things that we need to recognise is that there is no commercial cloning in the UK at the moment—or even in Europe. As a means of producing food, it is not a particularly successful way of doing it. Survivability rates are quite low, so we do not really have cloned animal products on the market at the moment. Of course, we have highlighted the quite sensitive negotiations going on between the EU and the United States and Mercosur. Some of these other countries have small amounts of cloned animals and we are reluctant to complicate those negotiations for something that is not actually a particular problem in this country.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Further to that question, may I simply ask the Minister whether he in principle supports clear transparency of labelling, subject to the outcome of the negotiations, so that UK and European consumers are aware that what they are eating is derived from cloned animals or products derived from those cloned animal? In principle, is he a supporter of clear labelling?
George Eustice: We have to be very careful in these things, first to recognise the scale of this as a problem—and we do not believe that it is a problem because it is not used commercially in this country at the moment. Secondly, we should recognise that were we to accept the principle that we would need to label these products—even though they do not exist in our market at the moment—it would potentially cause complications with the discussions we are having with the US and other countries.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Finally, on this particular aspect, the Minister would recognise from the Conservative election manifesto in the run-up to the last general
election a commitment to honesty in food labelling. I assume this would also extend to the use of cloned animals and their by-products. The Eurobarometer survey in 2011 indicated that 81% of UK consumers wanted transparent labelling. Perhaps I can ask the Minister one more time: in principle, is he supportive of labelling for cloned animals and their products?George Eustice: We think that there are sufficient regulations at the moment to protect food safety. We have got the novel food regulation and many regulations that protect the welfare of these animals. There is a danger that we put too much on labels, which would serve to confuse consumers, so in this case we do not accept that there is a principle for doing that.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): The Minister is quite right to say that the cloned animal is most likely to be a highly prized bull, ram or boar that might then be used for further breeding of piglets, calves, sheep or whatever. The question is not so much about the cloned animal, because they are very expensive to produce and there are few of them, so they are unlikely to get into the food chain. What is much more interesting is whether the directive will cover the cloned animal’s offspring—that is much more important. I wonder where the Commission is on that at the moment, or whether they know where they are.
George Eustice: It is early days, because we have seen only the initial proposals. My understanding at the moment, however, is that the Commission is taking quite a limited approach and looking specifically at the cloned animals rather than their progeny for the purposes of this directive.
Geraint Davies: The Minister and the Committee have made the argument that we do not have many examples of food made with cloned animals, but to what extent is this problem growing elsewhere and how quickly does he think this will come to our attention? Does he not think that we should take pre-emptive action?
George Eustice: We do not know how widespread cloning is, but we do not think that it is very widespread. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we believe that cloning, specifically of pedigree breeding stock or commercial breeding stock, is used in some cases to multiply up the breeding stock, but we do not believe that that has widespread use in the development of commercial animals for sale into the food chain simply because that is not efficient. We believe, however, that it is used in Australia, New Zealand, the US and some south American countries.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): May I say what a pleasure it is to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter? The Minister in his letter on 28 January said:
“In the meantime though, it is important that our negotiating position on the controls themselves remains flexible so that we are able to exert some influence over them and avoid being side-lined in the discussions.”
He repeated that in his comments earlier. Will he explain in more detail exactly what he is referring to: which controls and, most particularly, what legal base will be used by the Commission to bring the controls forward?
George Eustice: It is the controls that are set out in the draft directive on cloning that the European Scrutiny Committee looked at. As my hon. Friend will know, the basis on which that is being proposed is article 352 of the TFEU.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. If his only concern relates to article 352 of the TFEU as the legal base, that is subject to unanimity and an Act of Parliament. There is, therefore, no weakness in the Government’s negotiating position; they can simply refuse to proceed with the controls.
George Eustice: That is absolutely the case. Because this directive is under article 352, it is subject to a decision by unanimity in the Council. My hon. Friend is therefore right to say that we would have a veto.
Geraint Davies: The Minister will be aware of the EU-wide controls over genetically modified crops. Does he not feel that the evolution of those controls would be the emergence of similar regimes against animal clones to be used in food? Will he, at this point in time, say, “Actually, we would like to do our own regulation on GM foods and take this out of Europe so that everyone can do their own thing, with a kaleidoscope of regimes to tackle the same problem”?
George Eustice: We have already got a whole suite of regulations in place that deal with cloned animals.
Geraint Davies: The EU has got.
George Eustice: Exactly. They include regulations on food safety and the novel food regulation. At the moment, we already have sufficient regulations in place to deal with animal welfare concerns regarding cloned animals and with food safety concerns.
Geraint Davies: Perhaps I was not clear. Does the Minister think that the law of subsidiarity should mean that the regime on genetically modified foods should be taken away from Europe and brought back to Britain, or does he think that that is absolutely absurd?
The Chair: The Minister may wish to reply with reference to the particular measure before us today.
George Eustice: As I understand it, the European Scrutiny Committee highlighted its concerns regarding subsidiarity on a couple of key points.
Geraint Davies: It is amazing!
George Eustice: No, I think we would have some sympathy for that.
The first point is that there is no reason to have such a policy. We agree with that as a point of policy, and we have made that clear, because we think the existing regulations are sufficient. The second objection that the Committee raised in its report is that, while invoking article 352, it is unclear whether the stated objective, which is to address the consumer’s perceptions and concerns, is listed elsewhere in a treaty.
The Chair: If there are no more questions, we will proceed to debate the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee considers that the draft Council Directive on the placing on the market of food from animal clones (European Union Document No. 18153/13) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter 1 of the Thirty-fifth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxxii) and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.—(George Eustice.)
2.46 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, as the salient points have already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee—I suspect that other hon. Members will want to add to them as well—and by the reasoned opinion and supporting documentation submitted to this Committee by the ESC. I will not repeat in detail all those arguments, which have already been expertly laid out and to which the Minister will respond in some detail.
Suffice it to say that this debate is not a rehearsal of previous debates on the use of cloned animals and their offspring and materials derived from those animals in the food chain. That debate has been had before and will without a doubt return again. However, the substantive debate on that in this place is for another day.
At the risk of repeating myself, I must ask the Minister at the outset why, at a point back in 2011, when there was support from EU parliamentarians, including Labour parliamentarians and others, on the side of UK consumers for clarity in the labelling of products and materials derived from cloned animals and their offspring, the UK Government did not support that position.
As I said earlier during questions, it was quite clear that not only were UK consumers strongly in favour of clarity of labelling, but the proposal featured prominently in the Conservative manifesto in the run-up to the election. I hope that the Minister addresses that. Whether we are debating issues such as GM technology and food that is derived from that, or all the aspects of last year’s horsemeat scandal, the salient point seems to be that we want honesty and transparency. That debate is for another day, but I hope that the Minister will revisit that in his own mind and with his Conservative colleagues.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Before the hon. Gentleman concludes that point, who does he think should pay for that labelling? Should it be the primary producer, the middleman, the supermarket, or the consumer?
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a good question. I suspect that, in some way or another, the consumer will end up paying for clarity in labelling. Our question, as parliamentarians, is whether we think that is a price
worth paying. One of the big lessons from the horsemeat scandal, which thankfully was primarily an issue of food provenance rather than food safety—although it could have been otherwise—is that consumers have shown quite clearly that they think clear labelling is a cost worth bearing. The hon. Member for North Antrim rightly asked where that cost should be apportioned in the first instance. Should it be to the producers or further along the food chain? I suspect the answer tends to the latter—somewhere along the food chain. Ultimately, it will end up with consumers, but if we know what we are eating and that it is safe, it is probably a cost worth bearing—I digress.Today’s focus is very much on the principle of subsidiarity, which is a regular focus for the European Scrutiny Committee and, I suspect, the Minister. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is probably the Department most affected by European legislation, regulations and directives. It is no bad thing that its judgment in such matters is challenged appropriately by the Select Committee and parliamentarians in the House. Ensuring that the right decisions are taken at UK level is vital in a functioning democracy, as is ensuring that the right decisions are made at European level as appropriate.
The Minister has defended in writing and in person the Government’s position on animal cloning and has given wide-ranging explanations for their current position. They form part of the documentation before the Committee today. Again, I will not detain the Committee by reading them into the record in detail, but they may be summarised as follows. First, there is no case for prohibition, especially UK-only prohibition, of commercial cloning of traditionally farmed species and the placing on the market of animal and embryo clones and derived products. Secondly, if restrictions or prohibitions are put in place, that must be done at EU level, recognising the need for a level playing field among UK and EU producers—which has not so far been mentioned—and further recognising the international, extra-European trade in live animals, offspring and derived products beyond the boundaries of European member states.
The documentation further recognises that any EU action will face significant hurdles as it will be subject to the ongoing negotiations on WTO trade rules at least. Furthermore, the Minister accepts the probability or inevitability that there is a momentum for action within the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states. That requires the UK to adopt, in the words of the Minister and, no doubt, his UKRep advisers, “a flexible negotiating position.”
The Committee must assume that that flexible negotiating position means to some extent that the Minister wants to keep his head down and his powder dry for the moment, but will he specify—he hinted at this in his introductory comments—which nations, if any, are sympathetic to the UK’s current position of not supporting the need for the directives and EU-wide action? We must assume that he has few, if any, friends if he is already accepting the inevitability of defeat if the UK challenges the directives. The Minister has expressed in writing that he fears being sidelined, but it seems that we already have been on the substance of the directives. Are we now negotiating from a position of weakness? Can he disabuse us of that notion?
Is there a broad consensus of support for the UK’s position that the directives are unnecessary and for the Minister’s flexible negotiating position—for which we read, keep a low profile for now? In particular, is there support for that approach from Ministers in the devolved Governments and Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Does such consensus exist among the industry stakeholders from producers and their representative organisations, such as the various farmers unions in England and the devolved nations and regions, the meat processing sector, the retail sector and distributors? What specific discussions have the Minister personally and his officials had with those and other bodies, and how recently were those meetings? Are there any views that dissent from the Government’s position?
At the heart of this debate is the concern of members of the European Scrutiny Committee about what they suspect is EU competence-creep, with the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission wrongly interpreting and applying the principle of subsidiarity to the draft directive on food from animal clones being placed on the EU market and related imports.
The ESC laid down clear and specific challenges to article 352(2) of the TFEU and regarded the article’s application as a legal base for the current proposals as “highly doubtful”. The ESC challenged the directive’s compliance with the principles of subsidiarity on procedural requirements; the principle of subsidiarity and the necessity of this action being taken at an EU level; and the suggested insufficiency of member state action to tackle such matters on their own. All those arguments are laid out in the Committee’s draft reasoned opinion as part of the documentation.
In thanking the ESC for bringing the matter to the House today for consideration, I say to Committee members that we support their desire to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is appropriately interpreted and applied in this and other cases.
Geraint Davies: The ESC has identified the risk of competence-creep. However, as is clear from the example of not repatriating the responsibility for GM crops, we must guard against incompetence-creep.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes the point saliently. That was my next remark. While we welcome, as we always do, the opportunity to scrutinise the appropriate application and interpretation of subsidiarity, we believe that there are certain matters—the ones before us among them—that are best dealt with at EU level, if for no other reason than to ensure a level playing field for trade. While we might feel that it is for the UK to boldly plough its own furrow on some issues, this might not be one of them. It is best to approach the issue at an EU level.
However, it is right for the UK Parliament to consider the matters fully and to express its clear view, so I look forward to hearing the further detailed responses from the Minister. I say this to him clearly: the Opposition recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West said, that there are matters—not least those that relate to intra and extra-EU trade; consumer safety, protection and transparency; animal health and welfare; and vitally, ensuring a genuine level playing field for trade, food producers, manufacturers and distributors—that we should negotiate on not only in the best interests of the UK, but as a leading nation in the EU.
On that basis, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s full response. I urge him to work for UK consumers too, and not to repeat what we feel strongly are previous Conservative and coalition errors in opposing the clear and honest labelling of such products across the EU.
2.58 pm
Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Member for Ogmore has set out extraordinarily clearly the issues related to subsidiarity in an outbreak of cross-party coalition—almost. I can agree with the majority of what he said.
I want to focus on just one point. I am glad that the Minister in charge is the Minister in charge. He had a fine reputation, even before he entered Parliament, for thoroughly understanding the European issue, and from a point of view that I have often found sympathetic.
It seems enormously clear to me that the Government have been generous in supporting the ESC’s view that the proposals do not meet the requirements of subsidiarity; although that was not initially the Government’s view, they have come round to that view and have tabled the motion. They believe that the proposals are not necessary and that it has an article 352 legal base.
It would therefore be peculiar if the Government, in the horse-trading that goes on in the European Union, found at any stage that they agreed with the introduction of the regulations. In reference to the Minister’s comment that he wants to exert some influence over the discussions, that is absolutely fine and dandy, but if the discussions do not go well, the Government have a veto, and it is important to remember that the issue is not subject to qualified majority voting. The only argument that the Government could then put forward for not using that veto would be that they were getting some gain elsewhere. That is something that always creates the greatest suspicion in the minds of the electorate: when some vague, woolly, waffly bigger purpose is used by the UK Government as an excuse not to exercise a power that they possess. It does not meet subsidiarity. It requires unanimity. The Government think it is pointless and they should therefore say no.
3 pm
Geraint Davies: As I pointed out at the start, I was not at the meeting at which the European Scrutiny Committee came to its view, although I understand that it came to that view without a vote as such. I respect its view on protecting the principle of subsidiarity whenever possible, but that principle clearly lies within the context of a wider regime in which some things are better done at home and others better done collectively. We already mentioned the example of GM crops in that respect.
Given that we have seen the emergence and growth of cloned animals being used in food products, it is important that we act quickly in a pre-emptive way, just as we would with flood risk management. We have seen flooding here and people have said, “If only we had done a few more flood defences, we could have stopped this,” and we do not want to end up in a situation in which clone-filled food products are landing on our shores or elsewhere in Europe but we have an inconsistent regime across the European Union that means that consumers are not properly protected.
After all, consumers move around the European Union in great numbers. We have heard much talk about the number of Polish people in Britain and so on, but 2.2 million UK citizens live in Europe, compared with 2.3 million European citizens who live in Britain, so it is very much a two-way street.
The Committee used the argument that the directive is unnecessary because we do not have a lot of evidence at the moment. However, we can see the direction of travel. It also said that the directive might be in breach of the WTO rules, which is a hypothesis, and it said that food tracing would be impossible to enforce. In fact, the EU already has an online system called TRACES—trade control and export system—which monitors imports, exports and trade in animals and animal products. Much of the infrastructure, therefore, is already there at the EU level and it works well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned, it is clear from the horsemeat scandal that EU-wide regimes are required for food safety. Indeed, the modern basis of food production is pan-European: one could have processing, packaging and selling in different EU countries. The idea, therefore, that we could do it all in little England or little Britain is an anachronism.
A state-by-state, kaleidoscope approach to this matter would be problematic and involve more cost and duplication, and provide more opportunity for niche abuse by those who want to target inconsistencies in the marketing of these emerging products, with resulting issues of food safety and transparent choice from the consumer’s point of view. Producers would also end up wasting money, as they would have to provide different labelling for different countries.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need clear labelling to show what is safe and what is not, but we are saying that products that have clones in them should not be sold at all. Therefore, on the point about whether the consumer or the producer pays, no one should pay. What we want is a situation in which there would be no labelling saying, “Buy this: it’s full of animal clones,” whether that is cloned giraffe or whatever. That would not arise. We have EU-wide rules on food safety, hygiene and feeding animals and microbiological criteria for foodstuffs.
I am in favour of protecting subsidiarity, but not of flogging a dead horse—especially a cloned one. I therefore have great reservations about the reasoned opinion. Ultimately, I think that controls should be brought in sooner rather than later, on an EU basis.
3.5 pm
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): It is interesting to read through the directive and find that it prohibits, in theory, food from clones but not from the progeny of clones. The European documents argue that that is on the basis of the welfare issues related to the cloning process, rather than safety issues. Personally, I have concerns about the welfare issues. If I were in the food production business, I would wish to explain that the food that I was producing was neither from a cloned animal nor from the progeny of cloned animals, as it creates the same welfare problems.
To that extent, the directive does not really achieve anything, because it does not deal with the welfare issue of the progeny of cloned animals. We already know that
cloned animals produced in the EU are not on the market within the EU at the moment anyway, nor are the progeny of cloned animals produced in the EU. I am happy to support the Government’s position that the directive does not actually take us anywhere, but if I were in that business, I would do good labelling.3.6 pm
Ian Paisley: I have one question to ask the Minister before he completes this section. I was interested in the letter that he forwarded to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, in which he said that it is safe to assume that at some point in future, some new legislation will ultimately be approved, possibly without the UK’s support. On that basis, can he confirm for us or explain to us whether, if the United Kingdom fails to accept that—in my view, it would be absolutely proper for us not to accept it—we will ultimately be subject to a fine from Europe on that basis? Will we stand up to and oppose any fine resulting from that? One strength of our agri-food industry in the United Kingdom is that it is traceable. In the United Kingdom, consumers know what they have and what they are eating. In my view, that strength must be maintained at all costs.
3.7 pm
Neil Parish: I want to raise a couple of issues. One is about the animal welfare side of cloning. As far as cloned pigs go, there is no doubt that the evidence shows that many piglets that survive die by the time they are three weeks old, so there is an animal welfare issue. The directive does not necessarily cover that, but we should be mindful of it, because we should not encourage cloning.
As the Minister said in his initial statement, there is very little cloning going on in Europe, and certainly very little in this country, if any at all, but there is quite a bit in America. It is interesting. I honestly do not know the answer to this; perhaps he does. Unless the Americans actually label food as from a cloned animal, there is no reason why a beefburger coming in from America should not contain beef from a cloned bull. We would never know. As with a lot of legislation that we pass in this country and in Europe, we can never be absolutely certain what we are importing. I would be interested to know whether he has any idea. Is it labelled in America or other parts of the world? If not, is it freely coming into the EU and Britain without our knowledge?
3.8 pm
George Eustice: Thank you for calling me, Mr Streeter. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
First, I stress and underline the fact that we already have a large number of regulations in place to protect and safeguard the health and welfare of cloned animals in the EU, and to address food safety, through the novel food regulations. It is important to remember that the issue the EU says it is trying to address is not animal welfare or food safety but what it describes as adverse consumer perceptions about that safety. Partly for that reason, it has not been able to find a basis in any other part of the EU treaties for advancing the proposals. For instance, it could have considered article 43 on animal
welfare, but there are no grounds for it to do so, and there are others that it could have considered as well. It resorted to the so-called flexibility clause in article 352 because it has been unable to identify an alternative basis, but it has been under pressure from the European Parliament to look for one.On subsidiarity, Opposition Members raised the point that, given the single market, there might be a basis for introducing such legislation at a European level rather than a national one. However, the hon. Member for Swansea West ignored the fact that another key aspect of the subsidiarity test is whether the legislation is necessary. We do not think that it is, but other member states want to progress it. It is, therefore, right for us to engage in the debate and try to persuade other member states of our view, rather than simply sitting on the sidelines.
Geraint Davies: Does the Minister think that the legislation will become necessary at some point when we get these George Clooney burgers—sorry, cloney burgers—and if so, would it not be better to get on with it now?
George Eustice: I do not accept that. As I pointed out, cloned products are not currently sold in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked about the progeny of cloned animals, but there is no evidence to suggest that the progeny of clones, or their descendants, suffer any particular welfare issues. The focus must be on the cloned animals themselves, and, as I have said, we have regulations in place to tackle that.
To return to my point on subsidiarity, we do not accept that there is a need for legislation and we are not aware, as the Committee pointed out, of reference anywhere in the treaties to the concept of dealing with adverse consumer perceptions. There are plenty of regulations that deal with consumer interest, food safety and animal welfare, but the fact that the Commission has decided to try to pursue the matter under article 352 suggests that it recognises that there is no other treaty basis for doing so.
The hon. Member for North Antrim asked about other routes and expressed concern that if we did not engage in the process, the legislation might be brought in via an alternative qualified majority voting route. That is always a possibility. We cannot foresee what might happen, but if we were to get into a situation where one country unilaterally tried to pursue something, the argument might be made that, under internal market legislation, something might be done by qualified majority voting. It is right, therefore, for us to engage in the negotiations.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am trying to get an idea of the Minister’s realistic expectations for the relatively short period of negotiations. He has suggested that he will try to persuade other member states to come over to his position and agree that the legislation is not necessary. I am not asking him to name the nations unless he wants to, but does he already have partners in that diplomatic mission or is he starting from scratch? What does he realistically expect the outcome to be?
George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the last time the matter was discussed in 2011, quite a number of member states favoured further action on the regulation of the marketing of produce from cloned animals, so we do not pretend that our task will be easy. That should not be an argument for not engaging, however. We believe that it is important to engage in the discussions and to try to persuade other member states that the regulations are not necessary.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, the working groups begin at the end of this month, after which we will have a clearer view about where other member states stand. We think it is important to engage in that debate rather than simply standing on the sidelines and making it clear now that we intend automatically to veto the measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made clear, because the proposal was put forward under article 352, it requires unanimity in Council, so ultimately the UK could veto if it wanted to or if it was unsatisfied with what emerged at the end of the discussions.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I realise the limitations the Minister is working under in terms of laying out his hand for the negotiations, but, given the wider negotiations beyond this on food, food manufacture, food produce and other forms of trade, would it be safe to assume that it is highly unlikely that he will use his trump card of veto on this issue in this single negotiation?
George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a limit to what I can say at the moment. We would not be engaging in negotiations in good spirit if we got into hypothetical questions now about what we might do. We will engage in the negotiation. Doing so does not mean, as he suggests, that we have already given up because we will not have allies. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset made absolutely clear, the directive requires unanimity, so we ultimately have a veto if we need to exercise it.
I wanted to say a little about labelling, which the shadow Minister raised again, to underline that we do not think there is a case for such a measure. It is not necessary. There is no scientific evidence that there is any risk to food safety through cloned animals. We already have comprehensive legislation and regulations in place to protect animal health and welfare and food safety. There would be difficulties in enforcing such labelling without a detailed process for monitoring where the clones come from, which does not exist at the moment. Given that we are talking about a very small number of animals at the moment, and they are not even sold in the UK, it would be disproportionate to pursue such an approach.
Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister raises an interesting logical point about when to apply food labelling. What is singularly different between labelling cloned animals and their by-products, which, as the Minister says, does not raise safety issues, and labelling horsemeat, which is also not primarily a safety issue, but about consumers knowing that they are buying what they paid for? Where is the logical difference?
George Eustice: The logical difference between the two is that horsemeat was being sold and passed off as beef—a totally different product. We are not suggesting that a cloned animal, such as a cow or a sheep, would be passed off as a different animal, such as a chicken, but that it would simply be produced by a different method.
Huw Irranca-Davies: We did not know that horsemeat was being passed off as beef. The point is exactly same. Is this not an opportunity to ask whether there should be imports into the European market? The horsemeat came not only from European sources, but from south America and elsewhere. The same principle should apply in order to guard against consumers being misled.
George Eustice: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a different problem, which is the challenge of having reliable traceability systems in the international food chain. It is challenging enough as it is. We are at a sensitive point in negotiations with the US and other countries. It would be the wrong time suddenly to raise the spectre of a set of detailed traceability issues on cloning, given that the number of animals is tiny.
In answer to other questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, I confirm that our position has been discussed and agreed with the devolved Assemblies, and that we shall consult widely on the position with all the relevant stakeholders.
Geraint Davies: The problem with the horsemeat issue is that it was addressed after the horse had bolted. Does not that scandal point towards a need to act pre-emptively on the possibility of cloned meat getting into the EU in various ways? Would it not be better to have protection against a flood of cloned food?
George Eustice: An additional point is that obviously once the fact of horsemeat being passed off as beef was discovered, we could carry out DNA tests to identify such products. The difficulty with cloned animals is that no test is available to distinguish between an animal that has been cloned and one produced by any other means. I do not think that we would be able to enforce such rules, as we could with horsemeat.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the points they have made. We have had an interesting and detailed debate on a subject that arouses the passions of many people. I congratulate the European Scrutiny Committee on bringing the matter forward and submitting its reasoned opinion.
That the Committee considers that the Draft Council Directive on the placing on the market of food from animal clones (European Union Document No. 18153/13) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter 1 of the Thirty-fifth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxxii) and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.