HC Deb 27 April 1972 vol 835 cc1909-15

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills)

I beg to move, That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved. I will explain the purpose of the order as briefly and clearly as I can. It reenacts the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1971, its purpose being to continue to support the arrangements which are in force by virtue of the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1971, which in turn provides for guarantee payments to be made to producers of eggs which are packed by registered packers. It differs from the order it replaces only in that it implements the decision made following the Annual Price Review to allow guarantee payments to be made in respect of all first quality eggs, irrespective of size. First quality eggs weighing less than 1½ oz—extra small—were hitherto ineligible for guarantee payments. Extra small eggs form only a tiny proportion—less than 1 per cent.—of all first quality eggs, and as the egg subsidy is now at a low rate—½p per dozen—it is now unnecessary to continue to make special administrative provision for this insignificant category.

There is also the advantage that if we drop this distinction and bring all first quality eggs within the subsidy it would be easier for us—ifit were to become necessary before the end of this financial year—to enable producers to claim subsidy on any first quality eggs they graded to the EEC standards.

As regards the transition to the EEC egg marketing arrangements assuming that the House passes the European Communities Bill, discussions are still taking place with the trade and other interested bodies and the timetable for the changeover period is yet to be finalised. Egg producers, the trade and consumers' organisations are all anxious that the changeover to the EEC egg grading system should be made as soon and as quickly as possible so as to minimise confusion to the trade. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree with this, and I am sure that it is right.

Finally, I would add, in case there is any doubt in hon. Members' minds, that as the order was made on 23rd March the reference to "Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland" in Article 9 is a reference to the Stormont Minister of Agriculture. The functions referred to in Article 9 have, since the passing of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972, on 30th March, 1972, fallen by virtue of Section 1(1) of that Act to be exercised after the order came into operation on 2nd April, 1972, by the Secretary of State.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)

With a sense of deep emotion I approach this painful case because I never had a notion that an egg could create so many problems.

Clearly, any harmonisation of the number of approved marks for eggs is not likely to cause major dissension between the parties. I should be intrigued to know to what extent eggs less than 1½ ounces differ from the smallest gradable mark within the Common Market regulations, which I suspect are in grammes rather than ounces. I fear that a minor modification may be required to enable full harmonisation.

There is a much more serious point on the interpretation of "fresh eggs", which the order says means eggs which have not been preserved by cold or chemical storage or any other means", and Article 3 of the order, which talks about the marking of containers. This, clearly, raises the much more important point that the consumer's interest in knowing the age of the egg he buys does not appear to have been satisfactorily dealt with in the order. It may well be in the interest of the producer of eggs to make certain that no eggs are offered for sale which are stale by any criteria. On the other hand, it may equally well be in the interests of the wholesaler and retailer of eggs to hide the age of the eggs which they are selling. What we regret is that in the order no effective mechanism is introduced which will guarantee to the consumer that the egg he buys under these procedures is a fresh egg in the normal meaning that people will attach to such a term rather than under the interpretation in Article 2, whether this be by a date stamp upon a case of 15 dozen eggs or—as I and, I suspect, many other hon. Members on both sides would prefer—with the date stamp on a carton of eggs referring to the six or dozen eggs in the carton rather than the whole box of 15 dozen. There is no provision in the order for guaranteeing to the consumer an effective fresh egg under those criteria.

It would be difficult to argue with the inclusion of the extra-small egg, but the interests of the bantam rise to my mind and the prospect of securing access to an approved mark of bantam eggs. No one on either side would wish to see disapproved of the bantam and small egg, suitably graded in quality, size and price.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that the Ministry is pursuing very vigorously the whole question of the dating of eggs provided for our domestic market.

I welcome with certain reservations this change in the standards, the inclusion of a fifth standard of extra-small which starts to move towards harmonisation. Whether it be harmonisation or not is irrelevant. In that there were eggs less than 1½ ounces, which our potential entry to the Common Market is totally unconcerned with, these eggs are now brought within the proper ambit of grading and approved marking. What is more important to the consumers is that they should have an adequate dating protection.

I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance, in the interests of the consumer, the producer, the wholesaler, and the retailer, most of all the consumer, that the consumer will know the age of the egg he is buying and that the Government are prepared to take steps to ensure that stale, if not addled, eggs are not supplied to the consumer.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said about the fact that the changeover between the United Kingdom gradings and the EEC gradings will take place as speedily as possible. Perhaps this is an opportunity for to provide an answer to a problem, although I realise that it may not yet have been fully considered. It seems likely that there may be a short period when eggs of both United Kingdom gradings and EEC gradings will be served side by side in the shops. This might cause worry to consumers and housewives in particular. Has my hon. Friend been able to consider this point yet?

Secondly, during the interim period when it seems that both types of grading will operate, is it not likely that the EEC countries could export eggs to us of their own gradings but that we might be in difficulty about exporting eggs of our gradings to the EEC countries. From the producers' point of view, reassurance is needed here.

I appreciate that these are detailed points which may not yet have been given full consideration, but my hon. Friend's comments would be appreciated.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)

One does not want to give the Parliamentary Secretary too much of a baptism of fire because eggs are a bipartisan topic. However, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes), because it is almost impossible for the consumer now to know what a fresh egg is, not only because there is no date stamping on individual eggs—which is a controversial matter in itself in the trade—but because in a large city like London, in the middle of which I live, it is impossible to buy any edible egg whatever. Whether such eggs are deemed to be fresh is neither here nor there. They are inedible and uncookable, and I have long ago given up buying or eating them.

I have three questions that I want to put, slowly, to the hon. Gentleman because I do not want to throw them at him all at once. The first concerns date stamping of containers, not of individual eggs. Did the Minister consider this and consult the trade? Are we feeling our way towards it? That would be of some benefit at least to the retailer, if not to the consumer, because the retailer could then give a service to the consumer by ensuring that he knew the ages of the eggs himself and, in the interests of good business, did not offer stale eggs or eggs over a certain age to his customers, even if those customers would not necessarily know the age because there was no date stamping. Is the idea of date stamping entirely hostile to the EEC regulations? We may ultimately have to conform to its standards in any event.

My second question concerns the advantage of extra quality eggs to the consumer and an extra mark, so that we are to have under the order five categories of quality egg. Can the Minister say how the consumer can expect to benefit from having this extra mark—the extra small egg, as it is called? It seems that harmonisation is all very well, but one hopes that it will be in the interests of the consumer. On the face of it I cannot see that the consumer will benefit.

My third and last question concerns the order. If the only difference between this order and that of 1971 is the change in approved marking, why was it necessary to re-publish the whole order? It is not unknown—certainly in the last year we have seen several examples of this in agriculture—for there to be amending orders rather than re-publication of an order, particularly one as long and complex as this. I would have thought that the simplest thing—it would have saved work in the Department—would have been to publish a short amending order substituting the new grades. If this is not the only change, why does the Explanatory Note refer to only one change? If there are other changes, what are they?

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills

By leave of the House, I will reply to the points that have been raised. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. I well remember when I underwent that ordeal; it was nearly as bad as that through which I am now going! We congratulate the hon. Member and look forward to seeing him in that position for many years to come, at least until the next General Election.

Like so many of these short debates, this has been an interesting one because those who have taken part are keenly concerned with the subject. The order involves a simple arrangement because we want to keep things simple as they are phased out. It will help with adminis- tration and go some way to prepare for entry to the Community. It will also help the producers in that I understand that there is the possibility of another £30,000 going to them in subsidy as a result of the introduction of this smaller grade.

I have a plan here giving the comparisons of our grades with those of the Community, and I would be happy to let hon. Gentlemen see it later. In the United Kingdom we have five grades; the Community has seven. In practice only two or three grades are used, and I understand that our grade is smaller than the smallest EEC grade.

Date marking is not necessary for the protection of the subsidy, which is the important point. It would not be right for the order to impose additional burdens upon the industry when they are not required to protect the subsidy. There are in Section 6 of the 1970 Act provisions which enable the Eggs Authority to submit to Ministers schemes for quality control which cover the date marking of containers. The Eggs Authority has put forward proposals for a scheme for date marking containers, and we have agreed to it in principle. The authority is preparing a final scheme for submission to Ministers in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are moving forward on this, and I hope hon. Members will feel that it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Mark Hughes

What is the reaction of the wholesalers and retailers in the trade to such proposals?

Mr. Mills

To be perfectly frank, I am not sure. From my past experience I would expect a slight reaction against the proposals, but we are prepared to go ahead in principle. When we have the final scheme before us we will deal with it.

The hon. Member for Durham mentioned bantam eggs. I see no difference between a bantam egg and any other egg. If a bantam lays an egg large enough to be graded it will be graded. I know bantam eggs are very small, but all eggs—whether from a bantam or from a gleanie—will be graded in the normal way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) spoke of the standards of egg grading of the EEC and ourselves. If he so desires I will send him a copy of the graph which shows the differences. In general practice there are three grades rather than seven. In the transitional period there may be problems with the export and import of eggs, and we must harmonise our standards to fit in with those of the EEC so that these problems do not arise.

The hon. Member for Waltham stow, West (Mr. Deakins) asked about the date marking of containers, and I have answered that point. The date marking of containers is compulsory in the EEC. There again we are moving towards harmonisation.

The hon. Gentleman also asked why we have gone to the trouble of bringing forward a new order. Although there is only a small alteration, I think it is right that the requirements should be set out again.

I hope the order will be of benefit to the industry. It will certainly help with administration costs and harmonise our entry into Europe. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

Forward to