MEAT PRODUCTS (HEALTH REQUIREMENTS)

HC Deb 16 December 1976 vol 922 cc1879-905

10.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the draft EEC directive on Intra-Community Trade in Meat Products contained in COM(71)288 and welcomes the Government's intention to press for the acceptance of Environmental Health Officers as supervising and certifying officers for the processing of meat products for intra-Community trade. I remind the House that we are holding this debate on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation contained in its 7th Report of January 1976 and reiterated last month in its 39th Report. I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing this proposed EEC directive. It is to be considered at next week's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. I should explain that the proposals in the document COM(71)288 originally took the form of regulations, one covering human health aspects and the second animal health requirements. It has been agreed in Brussels to deal with these separately, and we are concerned tonight with what will now be a directive embodying only the human health requirements. The directive is part of the programme undertaken by the Community which aims at reducing barriers to trade in food and agricultural produce. It seeks to promote the free movement of meat products within the Community by removing the disparities between the various health requirements of the member States, and at the same time ensuring that meat products going into intra-Community trade are safe and wholesome. I should emphasise that the directive applies only to intra-Community trade.

There are already in force a number of directives relating to the health and hygiene aspects of intra-Community trade in meat which includes the directives concerning fresh or red meat and poultry meat. The poultry meat directive also concerns products for the home market and gave rise to the Poultry Meat (hygiene) Regulations 1976, which, as the House will recall, we debated at some length last month.

It is intended that the meat to be used will need to have been produced, inspected and certified in accordance with the meat directives I have just mentioned. Since the original proposals went to the Council in 1971, a number of changes have been agreed. It has now been made clear that the directive will cover all meat products, whether from red meat or poultry meat, which have undergone a certain degree of preservation, but it will not include such products as the British type of sausage, or minced meat. The draft directive now also makes provision for the removal of the need for certain of the directive's requirements to apply to the processing of products containing only a small percentage of meat where the Standing Veterinary Committee is satisfied that this is appropriate.

The draft lays down detailed requirements for producers. These include construction of the processing plant, provision of appropriate rooms, equipment, and water supplies, hygiene requirements for staff, premises and machinery, supervision of production, checks on the effectiveness of preservation treatments and rules governing the way in which the product is to be packaged, labelled, stored and transported.

I think I should draw attention to one aspect of the requirements concerning the health provisions relating to staff. Food handlers are required, as in existing United Kingdom legislation, to be free from infectious disease which might be transmitted to consumers through the meat product. In addition, a medical certificate will be required to attest that there is no impediment to the employment of the food handler and this certificate is to be renewed annually.

In the view of the United Kingdom, a requirement for annual medical certification and examination of food handlers is inappropriate because of the limited value of such routine medical examinations in the detection of diseases transmissible by food, and because of the disproportionate expenditure of medical and laboratory resources which they would entail. However, it is likely that agreement will be reached not to enforce this requirement until the Commission has completed an examination into the need for such certification.

Not all the detailed requirements of the draft directive are exactly in line with existing United Kingdom rules and practice, but, as I have said, they will apply only to those processors who wish to engage in export trade to other member States and not to the domestic trade. There has been close consultation with the interests concerned in this country, including, of course, the trade, and they have indicated that they will find the technical requirements broadly acceptable. Up to now there has been very little export of meat products from the United Kingdom. The existence of the directive should, we believe, encourage the growth of exports in this field.

I should like to turn now to the main issue which led to the Select Committee's recommending that the instrument raised questions of political importance and should be further considered by the House. This is the question of veterinary supervision. The EEC proposals require that an official veterinarian will supervise and inspect meat product processing to ensure that the requirements of the directive are carried out, and will sign a health certificate to this effect. Without such a certificate the product would not be allowed to go into intra-Community trade. Provision is made for the veterinarian to be given assistance by specially trained personnel, but the veterinarian would remain responsible for overall supervision and for certification.

At present, as I have indicated, manufacturers wishing to export meat products have to obey the requirements of the importing country, and other member States which take meat products from this country almost invariably request evidence from veterinarians, in accordance with their national rules, that the products have been safely processed. If, therefore, we accepted the provision of the directive requiring veterinary supervision and certification, there would be no really significant change in practice. Meat products for export would continue to require the veterinary certificate which is generally necessary now.

There is clearly a need for high standards, whoever undertakes the task of inspection of meat and meat products, but in this country responsibility for the supervision of meat products for home use is given to local authority environmental health officers. In the Government's view the environmental health officer is a properly qualified and appropriate officer to undertake the inspection of the processing of meat products whether for home consumption or, indeed, for export. Some people might think that as veterinarians are already supervising meat product manufacture for exports it is unnecessary for the Government to resist a provision in the draft directive which would do no more than perpetuate the same situation.

There are three points to be made on this. First, the present arrangements exist not because we believe them to be appropriate but because they have been imposed on exporters by countries importing their goods. They are not the result of an objective examination of the merits of these arrangements. Second, the Community's programme of harmonisation should, in our view, allow for the mutual recognition of the means of enforcing the standards laid down in any directive. Third, we cannot escape the likely significance for the future of whatever arrangements are adopted for the draft directive which we are considering tonight. While, so far as we know, the Commission has no present intention of introducing other directives which might, either for domestic or for intra-Community trade, again raise the supervision issue, we cannot be sure that none will be proposed in the future. It is for this reason that, in our view, it is important to ensure that the most appropriate arrangements are adopted for the purposes of the present directive.

The House will recall the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate on the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations on 3rd November, when he assured the House that beyond the poultry meat or red meat slaughterhouse the Government had no intention of requiring or agreeing to an extension of veterinary involvement in the duties that are now the responsibility of EHOs, and that we should vigorously resist in Brussels any proposals for such an extension. My hon. Friend went further when he assured the House that we wanted to strengthen the EHOs' position in these areas. This is what we have been endeavouring to do in Brussels in our negotiations on the meat products directive. We want the Community to recognise the place of the environmental health officer in inspecting and certifying meat products for export to other member States. In this connection it is relevant that under this directive it is intended that the meat used for such products must already have been produced and inspected in accordance with the EEC requirements for red meat and poultry meat going into intra-Community trade and so will already have received veterinary inspection and certification.

The detail of the directive which is to come before the Council of Ministers next week is now almost entirely agreed. The outstanding issue of importance is the United Kingdom's position on the veterinary issue. The Commission in the negotiations on the revision of the poultry meat directive agreed to look into the qualifications of non-veterinary personnel responsible for inspection in poultry cutting rooms and stores. We are hopeful of getting the Commission to agree to extending its review to meat products establishments, and to bring it forward so that the Commission should be able in the course of the next year to come up with a proposal to the Council as to which person shall be authorised to carry out the inspection and controls in the directive. Such a proposal would be subject, of course, to United Kingdom agreement.

Until such a review of relevant environmental health officer qualifications is complete and the proposal agreed, we consider that the directive itself should not require supervision and inspection by an official veterinarian; in the meantime, present arrangements should continue under national rules. If other member States were prepared to agree such a proposition, in our view the United Kingdom should be prepared to accept the directive on that basis. I should add that, if accepted, the directive is not likely to come into effect until the middle of 1979. The House will be aware of my right hon. Friend's decision to set up a working group to review future relationships between veterinarians, environmental health officers and meat inspectors in meat hygiene. We hope that the working group's findings will be of great value in the longer term, and we shall feed into a Commission review of EHO qualifications any relevant evidence or advice from the group which becomes available in time. I might also mention that I have myself met the professional and trade union organisations representing environmental health officers recently to explain to them the present position on the directive. They hope to submit evidence to the Commission for consideration during its review, and I assured them of the Government's support.

The House will, I am sure, share the Government's view of the importance to be attached to the Commission's review of the qualifications of non-veterinary officers and of the need for that review to be a thorough one. When the review is complete and the Commission has put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers, there will, in the customary way, be an opportunity for those proposals to be considered by the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation.

In conclusion, I think it right to emphasise that there are advantages that we can see arising from this directive. It should produce prospects of growth for a United Kingdom export trade in meat products. In addition, a Commission review of the environmental health officer's qualifications should provide a good opportunity to secure recognition by other member States of the environmental health officer's place in our food inspection system.

As with many British institutions which have no direct equivalent on the Continent, we must not be surprised if it takes time and effort to convince other members of the Community of the status of the environmental health officer. The Community is now well aware of the environmental health officer's existence and of the depth of feeling which has been aroused in the United Kingdom by the issue of his rôle in food hygiene. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to spare no effort in seeking to gain full recognition of his qualifications and ability to undertake food inspection.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for explaining the background to this proposal. It is some time since the Select Committee looked into these matters on 27th January last, and in that respect it is a pity that so much time has passed since the Committee reported before the House has had an opportunity to discuss them. But, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said about the negotiations which has been going on about the position of the environmental health officers, perhaps on balance it is as well that so much time has passed.

I want to begin on a somewhat domestic issue, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that there is anything personal in what I am about to say.

I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in his place, because I had to make a comment which I levelled at his Department on 2nd December when we discussed agricultural marketing. I think that the Government should pay a good deal more attention, when the House debates these Community regulations, to trying to achieve a degree of continuity in the Ministers who are personally responsible for these matters before the Select Committee and in the consequent debates on the Floor of the House.

Two weeks ago I was critical that the documents which we were discussing had been dealt with by the Select Committee where two Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture went to give evidence, and yet a third one came to reply to the debate on these documents on the Floor of the House.

We have a similar situation here. Although I accept that this document and the explanatory memorandum make it clear that the proposal is the responsibility of the health and agriculture Ministries, there would have been something to be said for having an agriculture Minister here tonight. I see that the Report of the Select Committee is headed Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food". Yet we have a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security here to deal with the debate. I say merely in passing that this is unsatisfactory. I hope that something can be done to deal with it through the usual channels and that the Under-Secretary will transmit these feelings to the Leader of the House and to those who make up their minds on these matters.

I believe that it would have been more logical to have an agriculture Minister here. These proposals are similar in many ways to the ones that we debated a few weeks ago on the poultry hygiene regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture dealt with, and, although I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary here, I think that it would have been better if an agriculture Minister had dealt with them.

Now I want to ask a question about the regulations themselves. In its Report dated 27th January, the Select Committee said on page 26: The Committee are unable to assess the importance of the various drafting changes put forward by outside organisations because, although it is known that many changes have been made in the original draft, they have not been supplied with any revised draft. What does that mean? I am somewhat at sea about what has been amended because, as far as I know, we are debating the same draft as the Select Committee dealt with back in January. I have been confused further to have received today a document from the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers' Association which says: The substantive version is R/1391 e/76 (AGRI 414) dated 11th June 1976. I do not quite know what that refers to. I have been to the Vote Office and looked at the index there, and there is nothing at all under No. 1391. I hope that the House has not been prevented from having a version of this document.

The Government really should try to find ways of allowing the House to deal with these matters sooner after the Select Committee has dealt with them. I know that in this case the Minister had rather more to say, but we are getting into a muddle in the way we are dealing with these proposals. At the other extreme, however, only yesterday the Opposition were confronted with another document on skimmed milk, and we are expected to deal with that tomorrow. On the one hand we have two days' notice for one document, and on the other we have another document which has been before the House for 11 months. I hope that the Government will look into this.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

I hope that my hon. Friend will elaborate this a little more. It seems from the way the Government are acting at present that they take no account of those from the Select Committee who are interested in these subjects. They put on a debate in the House suddenly, at a most inconvenient time. They suit only themselves, they do not suit hon. Members, and they do not look into the interests of those who serve on the Select Committee.

Mr. Jopling

I find these arrangements particularly inconvenient, but to hon. Members, like my hon. Friend, who do hours and hours of work upstairs on the Select Committee it must be extremely frustrating.

We must make clear at the beginning that these provisions apply only to meat products, and then only to products passing between States in the Community. Therefore, there is a very much greater limitation within these regulations than in the ones we have seen before on fresh meat and those dealing with the preparation of food for domestic consumption.

I understand that there are only 12 factories involved in this trade. That is a figure which I was given by the Minister, and I am grateful to him for being so helpful. He said that at the moment this trade is of negligible proportions. I tried to look it up in the trade statistics to see roughly how much it comes to, but I had a little difficulty in getting an exact figure. It is running at over £5 million worth of business a year, but that does not mean it is not important. Britain has a tremendous future in the export market for meat products, and I hope that nothing will be done to make it more difficult for our food industry, which is enormously efficient, to build on that figure.

The second part of the regulations deals with the restrictions proposed for preventing movement of meat products between Community States which might spread contagious animal diseases. We welcome that provision very much. In passing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is here, I commend the Government on their recent arrangements with the Community which allow the United Kingdom to keep our current safeguards against foot-and- mouth disease and reserve our position on the spread of brucellosis, bovine tubeculosis and swine fever by the trade in live animals between other countries of the Community and Britain. It is most important for us to adhere to our arrangements to prevent the occurrence in this country of diseases originating from abroad, and to retain regulations which prevent traffic in certain materials and certain foods. One has only to consider the example of the ban on the import of meat on the bone from South America and the effect that it has had in preventing an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease here.

I particularly welcome Article 4(1)(a) in that part of the regulations which prohibits meat product imports in the event of an outbreak in any other Community State. The regulations not only suggest that we can ban the import of a product if there is evidence of a disease in it; we are also allowed to ban the import of those products where a certain disease is in evidence in another member State.

I move now to the first part of the regulations, about which I have greater reservations. Let me refer to the comments which I have received from the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers' Association. I said that I hoped very much that the regulations would do nothing to make it more difficult for our food industry to export meat products to the rest of the Community. I am somewhat alarmed to see the following comments in the document that the Association has sent me: The Directive will not give proper protection to public health, will act as a barrier to intra-community trade for the UK, and will increase costs subsantially to achieve compliance in the UK during a period of very low profits and negative cash flow in the industry. It will discourage exports, and we fear that there will be pressure from Brussels before long to make it comply nationally. Some of these points were dealt with by the Minister, but I wish to draw attention to the statement because it is important for the Government to realise that regulations of this sort are putting up the backs of certain sections of the food manfacturing industry. Once that happens, those interests will abandon the idea that it is good and relatively simple to export and will turn away from the tremendous opportunities in the Community in this respect.

The Association has told me that it believes it to be wrong to frame regulations for meat processing factories on the same basis as slaughterhouses and primary boning and cutting rooms under British meat regulations which we have already dealt with. I do not know who will deal with these matters in Brussels next week. [Interruption.] It seems that it is to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is absurd that he has not been at the Dispatch Box tonight to deal with these regulations.

Mr. Deakins

Before the hon. Member gets too worked up about this matter, let me assure him that there is a rational explanation for what is happening tonight and for what will happen in Brussels next week. I shall be happy to give it when I reply to the debate.

Mr. Jopling

This whole business seems clothed in mystery. We are agog to hear what the Minister will have to say. We are also glad that the Minister who will deal with these matters next week is present to hear our views, and we thank him for coming along.

The Association says that it feels that there is a need for a fundamentally different approach to the way in which we deal with factories manufacturing meat products rather than using regulations dealing with slaughterhouses and cutting rooms. It believes that it is wrong to lay down specific regulations for a widespread variety of products and processes. It says that the hygiene and handling requirements are very different for products such as bacon, ham, sausage, meat and canned fully sterilised meats. The Minister told us that sausages were excluded, but some are canned and they might come within the regulations. The point is still good. The Association believes that it would have been better to set out the aims of the regulations, leaving a greater latitude to national enforcement bodies to arrive at those aims, bearing in mind that different processes of manufacture, different methods, perhaps need different ways of dealing with them under different national conditions.

The lesson is that there is a need for the Government to press for more flexibility in the operation of the regulations. There is also a need for derogations. The Consumer Association and the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers' Association particularly feel that there is a need for derogations for products where the amounts of meat used are minimal, such as soups, in some of which very little meat is used, and cheeses in which ham is introduced in very small quantities. I was bound to wonder whether sausages were excluded because such a minimal amount of meat is sometimes used in their manufacture.

Mr. Hamish Watt (Banff)

Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is also a need for derogations for many products whose base is game meat, such as red deer and hares, which cannot be inspected before slaughter? The meat is required for inclusion in such products as game soup, and present regulations require it to be inspected before it can be exported to other Community countries. Many people in factories in my part of the country are having great difficulty in meeting the ridiculous regulations embodied in this kind of order.

Mr. Jopling

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a sporting kind of chap. That is a side of the regulations that I had not considered. I think that he has a good point, and I hope that the Minister listened carefully to what he said.

The Bacon and Meat Manufacturers' Association has also drawn attention to the confusion resulting from the provisions on heat treatment. I do not want to go into that matter now, but I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

I now come to the two reservations that I understand the Government have been dealing with. The first concerns the annual medical certificates. I think that the Minister said that they were an inappropriate way of tackling the problem. The Association believes that the provision will only increase costs and create employee resistence to the necessary testing for diseases such as salmonella. It tells me that United Kingdom medical opinion agrees that the provision cannot significantly increase the likelihood of detecting disease carriers. If that is so, and the Minister feels that it is an inappropriate provision, I hope that he can delete it.

Reservations have been expressed about the inspection and supervision to be carried out by an official veterinarian. I welcome the Minister's statement that the environmental health officer is a properly qualified person to do much of this work. There is considerable scope for environmental health officers—who have considerable training and expertise—to play a major part in the implementation of the regulations. I hope that the Community will extend the review to meat products.

There has emerged in the meat industry a pair of warring factions—the vets on one side and the environmental health officers on the other. A few weeks ago when he was speaking on the Poultry Hygiene Regulations the Parliamentary Secretary announced that he was opening discussions between the two groups to try to bring them together. I understand that the first meeting was scheduled for 30th November. If the Minister is aware of what is going on, it would be helpful if he would give us a progress report. How the talks are going is relevant to these proposals. I hope that the rôle of the vets will be clarified in the way the Minister proposed. I cannot see why the vets should be involved in the meat manufacturing side, but if they have a part to play I hope their anticipation will be confined to work for which their specialised training fits them.

To sum up, we should like to know how the discussions are going in getting the vets and the environmental health officers together, and how much progress is being made in the Community on the recognition of environmental health officers. We welcome the Government's recognition of their role and their capacity to do a great deal of this work, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us more about the attitude within the Community.

In view of the Government's attitude to the rôle of environmental health officers and their belief that the vets will not be involved in the immediate future, I hope that my hon. Friends will allow the motion to be approved by the House. The Government have taken a much more sensible view of the position of environmental health officers, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not oppose the proposal.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

As one who moved a Prayer against the Poultry Hygiene Regulations, I welcome the terms of the motion before us tonight. I am happy to see on the Order Paper a more reasonable motion which I can support.

In the earlier debate on poultry meat hygiene we were concerned that the rôle of the EHO was being supplanted by the veterinary officer, with consequent danger to the whole approach to environmental health services and the possibility of a considerable increase in cost without any appreciable improvement in the quality of service for the protection of the community. At that time a promise was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of "thus far and no further"; that if there was any question of this going any further the Government would take a strong line in Brussels to resist pressure for the introduction of the veterinary officer into areas which, in our view, are the preserve of the EHO.

No one has wished to exacerbate any ill will between the two bodies. We have every respect for the training and qualifications of the veterinary officer, but the work that he has undertaken in this country has been different from that which he has undertaken on the Continent, and we see no reason why our concept of the general purpose EHO should he displaced in this way. My hon. Friend gave an undertaking that there would be absolute resistance by the Government to any proposition to extend the veterinary officer's rôle in this respect. As far as I can see, the Government are carrying out that undertaking, and I express my welcome for the fact that the motion is in these terms.

I have had a brief look at the directive, and I fear that if we had allowed it to go through as it stood it would have extended the rôle of the veterinary officer into a wide range of processed meat, packaged goods, and so on. That is precisely what has been feared by the EHO in the past.

I would welcome it very much if my hon. Friend would say, as I understand is the case, that it is the intention of the Government to press for the replacement in the directive of the words "official veterinarian" by "authorised officer", with a proper definition to make it clear that the EHO is one of the authorised officers entitled to carry out this work. In the directive the words "official veterinarian" appear on every page and in a whole range of functions, and I am anxious to ensure that the situation is cleared up.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I again express good will towards the terms of the motion. I am sure that the House will watch very carefully to ensure that the kind of service that we have built up in this country, and of which we are proud and which I think is important, is protected and preserved.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

I welcome the chance of saying a few words about this legislation, which I think is important.

The Minister said that the object of the exercise was to reduce barriers to the food trade within the Community. But the biggest barrier and hindrance to the food industry's trade with the Community, particularly in meat products, is the Government themselves. The Government's failure to revalue the green pound has resulted in our meat exporters having to pay a levy of 8p a pound on beef and 10p a pound on pork.

The Government are hoping to increase intra-Community trade, but those of us in the South-West who have been trying desperately to ensure that Britain, as well as importing food from the EEC, also gets a share of exports with our valuable products find that our own Government's failure to act on the green pound is the biggest hindrance.

The Minister said that the regulations were confined to those who wished to trade. He may be right, but I wish that he would add that the Government are seeking to encourage this trade. That is the whole point of being in the Community. In areas such as the South-West, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we should be taking full advantage of the opportunities to export food to the EEC. The Minister said nothing about that aspect, and I have noticed this tendency time and again. The Government do not seem to be interested in exporting food to the Community. I hope that they soon change their attitude.

How far does the definition of meat products go? In the South-West we have started developing a most interesting trade with the Community. It is derived from various by-products of the slaughtering of cattle and includes tripe, gut, glands and other things which are most valuable. Will they come within the regulations?

There is a lot of money in these byproducts. The EEC seems to value them more than we in this country do, and we are exporting large amounts. I have encouraged a factory in Winkleigh in my constituency to develop this trade, and I shall be very disappointed if it has to stop.

Large amounts of tinned ham and other meats are coming into the Community and most of it is heavily subsidised, especially that from Poland and the Eastern bloc countries which want only the currency and are, therefore, prepared to export tinned meat products at competitive prices. It would be unfair if the same stringent regulations were not insisted upon for tinned meat from third countries.

I turn now to Northern Ireland. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland will not mind if I speak about it but I was Minister in charge of agriculture over there. One of my jobs was to ensure that stringent safety precautions were taken. This is important for Northern Ireland. That excellent civil servant, Mr. Jimmy Young—I believe that he is still there—always convinced me of the need for such precautions. He was absolutely right. When I was there there was considerable pressure upon me from various bodies to relax these regulations. It would be sad if Northern Ireland did not continue these stringent regulations which are so necessary because of the border with the South.

The Government have done a turnaround on this business of veterinary control. The Minister tonight displayed an entirely different attitude from that which we have heard in the past. The environmental health officers can do this job, and the House has probably influenced the Minister in getting this turn-around. We should welcome that. I am certain that they can carry out this work well. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the position with the discussions between the vets, the Government and the environmental health officers.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

My understanding of these proposals is that they tend to remove barriers to trade between various countries by equalising arrangements made in those countries. The trouble is that the individual requirements due to climatic conditions alone are not necessarily the same. That fact seems to have been lost on the EEC. The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) referred to the import of tinned meat from Eastern bloc countries at competitive prices. If they are competitive prices I am not worried. What worries me, if these third countries are interested only in the currency, is that the imports might amount to State-controlled dumping. Is the Minister satisfied that this is not happening?

The export trade from Northern Ireland to the Continent has been largely in live lamb and cattle, which apparently do not come under these regulations. The Minister appeared to be talking tonight only of the first of the two proposals contained in them. It is to the second proposal that I intend to direct my attention. Paragraph 4 of the explanatory memorandum is headed "Policy Implications" and says: The second proposed regulation, whilst making provision for animal disease precautions broadly similar to those operated by Great Britain, will not, in its present form, permit the more stringent precautions operated in relation to imports into Northern Ireland. I would like to examine this in detail. Throughout Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic there has been broad agreement and co-operation concerning the stringent safety precautions regarding disease. Can the Minister give an assurance that these high standards will be maintained? Can he explain his attitude to the Irish Republic on this issue? I am aware that there has always been co-operation at Government level but I want an assurance that the standards that Northern Ireland has demanded will be maintained and that we shall not have to accept a lowering of standards.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

There is a strange humming noise in the House tonight which might attract the attention of the local environmental health officer if there is one on duty at such a late hour. The noise cannot be due to the hubbub of the assembled masses in the House.

I rise only partly—[Laughter]—I rise fully to my feet but I shall stand on one leg—to join in the approval of the motion which was so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).

There is an excellent meat products factory—Robirches—in Burton-on-Trent which turns out pies, ham and bacon. Whatever meat product one names, it comes out of this factory half an hour after the live pig has gone in. That firm would welcome any measures which would improve its already high standards of hygiene and satisfy the public of complete safety.

If I may stand on my other foot, I shall tell the House my real reason for addressing hon. Members. It is that once again we have inadequate documentation about a Common Market matter. I do not claim to have that diligence in community affairs possessed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who greet all Community debates, documents and details with a critical rapture which few of us have. However, I spent three weeks campaigning in my constituency to try to secure that Britain remains a member of the EEC, and I take a dim view of the fact that every time I come into the Chamber to reflect that interest in the Common Market I find that there is something wrong with the documentation. Too often the documents are two or three years old; the latest one is not available, not dated or, if it is dated, it is not signed. Time after time hon. Members on both sides have asked the Minister why we are so inadequately instructed. why we cannot get papers from the Vote Office and why we have so little information. Hon. Members ask why outside sources can refer to documents that we have not seen, but time and time again the Minister says "Sorry, something has gone wrong. It will not happen again." On Thursdays hon. Members ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we have adequate documentation in future and time for adequate preparation, as well as having the debates at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am afraid that I cannot give the observation to Community documents that the hon. Gentleman thinks I do. But does he recall that in the last debate on water in the House, the motion on the Order Paper referred to a document and gave an opinion on it, but it subsequently turned out that that was not the document to which the opinion was attached? May I invite him, on a future occasion when this happens, to join me in making representations to Mr. Speaker that the debate be adjourned for lack of proper documentation? We might then get somewhere.

Mr. Lawrence

I am obliged to the hon. Member, but that is not the only example that I recall of precisely that happening. On the odd occasion that I have intended to speak on some Community matter and have prepared something in accordance with a document, I have come here to be told by the Minister that the document has been superseded, that there is another document and the subject matter of my speech has gone. This is intolerable, not only because it happens often, but, even more so, because the Government say that they will do something and treat the House with contempt by just doing nothing.

This cannot be permitted to go on indefinitely. I say that as someone whose heart and soul—this is where I do not agree with the hon. Members to whom I have referred—has been in the Common Market. But there comes a time when one begins to wonder whether one has backed the right side. If the Government want us to take part in these debates and make some contribution to the important subjects under discussion, they will have to give a convincing undertaking that this will never happen again. I ask hon. Members to do what they can to ensure that the Government do not behave in this contemptuous way in future.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

I am sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) does not like the taste of EEC bureaucracy, but I was glad to hear some implications of resipiscence on his part and that his experience might be proving similar to that of the great body of public opinion in this country, that those who voted "Yes" are regretting it.

However, I entirely associate myself with the hon. Member in what he said about the obsolete character of these documents. Indeed, the one that we are now debating is of exceptional antiquity, at any rate by EEC standards. Perhaps that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and I have troubled the House.

I endeavoured earlier to prevent the Minister from resuming his seat with such precipitancy, but I was unsuccessful. Supporting my hon. Friend, I would say that unless the hon. Gentleman can say that the paragraph which my hon. Friend quoted is obsolete, unless he can assure us that the regulations as the Government propose to agree to them would no longer prevent the present precautions operated in relation to imports into Northern Ireland, then my hon. Friends and I—and, I gather, others—would not be agreeable to the Government giving their consent to these regulations in that form.

This debate follows somewhat ironically upon the conclusion of a debate in which the House was discussing the different treatment of different parts of the United Kingdom. Three or four hours ago I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that this House has often made different laws for different parts of the United Kingdom to accord with local circumstances. That is certainly a case in point here.

Northern Ireland is for some purposes an island, although one of its frontiers is a land frontier with the Republic of Ireland. It is therefore possible and necessary in Northern Ireland to secure standards of safety from animal disease and other forms of infestation which might not be practicable in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We would be no party to seeing our exceptional position whittled away in that respect. This is a matter that relates to imports from outside the United Kingdom into Northern Ireland, but all of us who travel by air to and from Northern Ireland are aware from the words that come over the communication system in the aircraft that intra-United Kingdom traffic with Northern Ireland is also subject to regulation for the same purpose—namely, the prevention of the spreading of animal disease and other infestation.

I shall not defer longer what I hope the Under-Secretary of State will say—namely, that my hon. Friends and I are pushing at an open door and that there is no question of any regulations being agreed to which will lessen the standards imposed at present on imports into Northern Ireland.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Deakins

We have had an interesting debate. If I may say so, it has been less heated and emotional than the preceding debate.

First, I shall explain why it is that I am taking the debate tonight. Ministerial responsibility for the directive within the United Kingdom lies jointly with the Health and Agricultural Ministers in England and Wales and with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but my Department has taken the lead in Brussels, with valuable assistance from the other Departments concerned, in the many discussions that have taken place in the long process of consultation. Therefore, it is considered appropriate and, I think, right and proper that a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Services should take the debate tonight.

Nevertheless, as a result of arrangements in the Community for which my ministerial colleagues and I are not responsible, the subject falls within the agricultural sector within the Community, and it is to be considered at next week's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers at Brussels, at which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be presenting our case, I hope, successfully.

The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) pointed out that the numbering of EEC instruments is rather peculiar. I must say that on many previous occasions in the House I have noted the same peculiarity. I confess that I do not understand the numbering system. We can only hope that in the course of time perhaps a more sensible or more easily understandable system of numbering will be developed, although there are so many committees, subcommittees and working committees producing documents that keeping some track of them perhaps requires a numbering system that is not necessarily as simple as we should like.

Mr. Spearing

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee on Procedure recommended that the House adopt its own system of numbering EEC legislation so that we could keep track of these documents, and that the then Leader of the House—this was 3rd November 1975—declined to put that recommendation into operation? The then Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends refused that recommendation. In view of what my hon. Friend is now saying, will he take up the matter with the present Leader of the House to see whether the suggestion can be reactivated?

Mr. Deakins

I shall report to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that several hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the numbering system as well as the matter raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

The hon. Member for Westmorland asked about the revised draft. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, this is in a sense an antique document by Community standards, although I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that it is by no means exceptional. The House will recall that a number of directives introduced in the early or middle years of the Community have been around for a long time with little progress being made on them. This is one such document, which has had some "meat" injected into it partly as a result of developments in the Council of Ministers in the past year. In particular, there has been the growing demand by meat industries in the rest of the Community and in this country that the present barriers to intra-Community trade in meat products be reduced or eliminated as soon as possible.

What are the changes that have been made? I do not wish to weary the House with a list of all the changes but I will give what I think are the major changes. The latest draft, unlike the earlier draft, provides for products which have received incomplete treatments—for example, canned hams, which must have an indication on the package label of suitable storage temperature. Requirements for minimum percentages of salt have now been deleted from the directive. The list of definitions has been extended and now defines meat as including meat produced in accordance with the EEC directives on fresh meat and poultry. It had been intended originally that substances such as antibiotics, oestrogens and tenderisers should be banned. Now national legislation is to apply to the use of additives until the entry into force of Community provisions on the matter.

Mr. Jopling

With regard to the revised draft, I am not entirely satisfied with that the hon Gentleman has said. Could he tell me why it is that bodies outside see the revised drafts and write us letters about them, yet we are not allowed to see them? How does he justify the situation?

Mr. Deakins

I do not justify a situation in which outside bodies have access to papers which are not available to the House, and no one in his right mind would seek to do so. If that has been the case, I apologise for it. It is no fault of mine or of my Department, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to pursue the point I shall have a look at it. The consultations have been going on since December last year, not on the basis of the latest version of the paper but on the basis of an earlier version. I am about to provide some information about consultations.

Mr. Lawrence

Which of the two Departments concerned with presenting this matter is responsible?

Mr. Deakins

I tried to explain earlier that the lead in this is taken by my own Department, since we are responsible for food hygiene matters in the United Kingdom. As for our responsibility for the directive, under the Food and Drugs Act it is a joint responsibility with the Agriculture Ministers and the appropriate Northern Ireland and Scottish Ministers—

Mr. Lawrence

But who is responsible for not producing the documentation which ought to be available to hon. Members in the House?

Mr. Deakins

There is documentation available to hon. Members in the House. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that for this debate we should produce all the various documents, dealing with the various stages that this has gone through, that may be a valid criticism, although I am not at all certain that it would necessarily have made the task of the hon. Members easier. They would want to see the latest version. There have been substantial differences between the 1971 version and the mid-1976 version, although the debate is taking place on a version the number of which is set out in the motion before the House at the moment.

With regard to consultations, wide consultations have been held over the past year with a large number of interested organisations. Bodies representing professional interests, workers, consumers, local authorities and the trade associations concerned have all had a chance to put their views and these have been taken into account in negotiations in Brussels.

Representatives of the manufacturers of meat products in the United Kingdom, I know, have been particularly helpful—I know the association well, having spent a long time in the industry—in providing guidance on the detailed technical provisions concerned. All the United Kingdom Government Departments concerned have worked closely together on questions arising from the directive. I can supply a long list of all the organisations which have been consulted but it would be otiose to provide it at this stage.

It was suggested that we needed greater flexibility in these matters. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who will be in Brussels next week, will have taken note of that point.

I was asked particularly about a derogation in connection with products with a relatively low meat content. I tried to deal with this point in my remarks but I will repeat it for the benefit of the House. I said that the draft directive now also makes provision for the removal of the need for certain of the directive's requirements to apply to the processing of products containing only a small percentage of meat where the Standing Veterinary Committee of the EEC is satisfied that this is appropriate. I hope that that will deal with the point about low meat content products.

The hon. Member also asked about medical inspections. I have already indicated that we were not entirely happy about the extra costs that that would involve, and about responsibility in the industry, particularly from the public health point of view. There does not appear to be a need for this in terms of preventing the spread of disease through the inadequate treatment of processed foods. I said that it was likely that agreement will be reached, possibly next week, not to enforce this requirement until the Commission has completed its examination into the need for certification—and then it will have to come back to the Council for further consideration.

I was glad to hear the hon. Member's welcome for our intentions in respect of the protection of the interests of environmental health officers. Both he and the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) asked about the progress of talks between the veterinary profession and environmental health officers and others, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The first meeting has just taken place, so it is a little early to give a progress report, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep the House fully informed about progress.

I think that I have now dealt with all the points raised by the hon. Member, except one. He and other hon. Members asked what was happening in Brussels about the processing of the review by the Commission on the qualifications, training and suitability of environmental health officers. The United Kingdom has already put to the Commission a paper setting out the qualifications of environmental health officers, and we shall be ready to put further evidence to the Commission and to assist it in its review of meat products inspection. We are in the course of preparing a more comprehensive paper which will go into more details about environmental health officers, the time taken on various subjects, the time taken in training, and so on, in order to justify the line that we are proposing to take.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) also welcomed my remarks on this subject. Knowing his interest in environmental health officers, I very much welcome and thank him for what he said in supporting the motion.

My hon. Friend suggested that as a compromise we might consider a form of wording incorporating the phrase "authorised officers" instead of "veterinary officers". I cannot say that that will be the exact form of wording, but pending the outcome of the Commission's review we would be prepared to agree a directive providing for the existing conditions to continue.

The hon. Member for Devon, West raised a number of queries and asked in particular about by-products. The directive excludes meat extracts, meat consommé and stock, meat sauces not containing fragments of meat, bones, animal gelatin, dried blood, fats melted down from animal tissues, stomachs, bladders and intestines.

The hon. Member also asked about the position of imports from third States. I stress that the directive is applicable only to intra-Community trade, and it requires meat products from third countries to be produced under conditions at least equivalent to those laid down in the directive. That is a fairly tough requirement.

The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talked about the high standards in Northern Ireland. I take that point, having worked in the meat industry. I recall that many years ago my own firm set up a meat plant in Northern Ireland in order to take advantage of the facilities there in terms of the export of meat products to the United States of America, which has some of the highest hygiene requirements for exporters to that country. I am well aware of the high standards that exist there.

The hon. Gentleman asked wheher the Eire Government would support the directive. So far as I am aware, they will. There could have been agreement at the November council meeting had it not been for our reservation on the issue of supervision—in other words, that we were not willing to accept the wording "veterinary supervision". That matter will come up again in December.

The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to health matters and the high standards which, I accept, exist in Northern Ireland. I tried to make clear earlier that there was originally to be one directive covering animal health and meat products. There will now be two. The only one with which we are now concerned relates to human health aspects of meat products.

The matter of the spread of animal disease, and so on, will be covered in the proposed new directive, which will come before the Scrutiny Committee. My colleagues who will deal with the matter will have taken note of the points raised in this debate.

I hope that I have covered the points raised in this debate. At some point next year we shall no doubt return to the House on these matters, and the Scrutiny Committee undoubtedly will recommend further changes on the vexed issue of the qualifications of environmental health officers to do work which at present other Community countries insist is carried out by veterinary officers. We hope that we shall be able to come to the House and report on the situation raised by possible encroachment on the traditional reserves of the EHO. It is our concern to protect their interests. It is one reason why we introduced this motion in this way, which I am sure will be of benefit to my hon. Friend when he goes to Brussels next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the draft EEC directive in Intra-Community Trade in Meat Products contained in COM(71)288 and welcomes the Government's intention to press for the acceptance of Environmental Health Officers as supervising and certifying officers for the processing of meat products for intra-Community trade.