§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community documents R/1444/78 and- Corrigendum and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's updated explanatory memorandum of 24th October 1980 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food; 4709/80 on levels of pesticides residues in and on cereals for human consumption and foodstuffs of animal origin; 4101/80 on the approximation of Member States' laws on fruit juices and certain similar products; and 5561/80 on egg marketing standards: and while supporting the underlying objective of removing barriers to trade and protecting the consumer, supports the Government's intention to oppose proposals which would involve burdens on United Kingdom production and trade interests or costs which would not be commensurate with the benefits in terms of improved consumer safeguards or the removal of technical barriers to trade.The Government welcome the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to recommend these documents for debate. They are measures that are intended to assist the harmonisation of trade, and they all contain some aspect of food consumer protection interests. The Government's attitude towards them is also similar. The House will recognise sufficiently common themes surrounding the consideration of these proposals to suggest that it is for the convenience of the House that the documents are being taken together in one motion today. I recognise, however, that the House will wish to order the debate in such a way as to enable each measure to receive the consideration that it deserves.The first Commission proposal—R/1444/78, plus corrigendum and my Department's updated explanatory memorandum, on plastic materials intended to come into contact with food—forms part of a Community programme covering all food contact materials. It is concerned with the migration of the constituents of plastic materials into food, and derives from the fact that no material is completely inert.
I am in no doubt that the specific proposal that we are discussing today has considerable shortcomings. It proposes one maximum limit for the migration from plastics, although plastic ingredients vary considerably in their toxicity and 1646 behaviour when in contact with different foods. We do not know its full effect, and will not be able to assess that until we know how each foodstuff is to be related to the proposed controls, and until methods of analysis have been worked out.
Substantial changes have already been made to the proposal, but further important changes are desirable before the draft is sent to the Council of Ministers. The Government cannot support the proposals in their present form.
Document 4709/80 deals with two draft directives on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals intended for human consumption and foodstuffs of animal origin. They would require member States to take steps to ensure that the produce involved met the maximum permitted residue tolerances and would specify as a minimum the employment of random sampling and analysis. The instruments are mandatory, and if adopted United Kingdom legislation would be required.
It is important to consider these proposals against the two stated objectives of European Commission regimes and standards for pesticide residues in food. These are to remove barriers to trade and to safeguard human health. The United Kingdom subscribes to both. Where we are at issue with the Commission and with some of our Community partners is on the means necessary to achieve them. In removing barriers to trade the United Kingdom has long been associated with the international regimes developed by the WHO/FAO Codex Alimentarius Commission, whose worldwide recommended standards allow member countries to provide for free movement of produce while making their own arrangements for the safeguarding of the health of their nationals. It could be argued that, to quote the jargon of the Codex, "limited acceptance" of the Codex standards in the areas covered in the Commission's proposals would do all that was necessary to ensure freedom of trade. There is no need for a separate Community system of standards to bring that about.
The Government's main reservation concerning the proposals is, however, more fundamental. It arises from the Commission's apparent objective of seeking to lay down detailed arrangements for 1647 health monitoring within individual member States. This seems to be a flagrant case of harmonisation for its own sake. The Commission proposes a "blanket" that would involve mandatory sampling and testing of food products entailing a vast and expensive administrative paraphernalia, the burden of which would, in our conditions, largely fall on local authorities.
In the United Kingdom we have for some years operated successfully a selective system that relies primarily on analysis of the food that we eat, and on the quantities that are eaten, in order to determine intakes. In addition, we have programmes for the study of body tissues, with the objective of checking them and identifying any products or residues where it seems to us that there may be some risk. Successive Administrations, with the support of the interested bodies representing consumers, manufacturers and producers, have accepted that the selective system is more efficient, more rational and far less expensive than the kind of system that is already in operation in parts of the Community and on which the Commission's proposals are based.
Hon. Members may be aware that last spring the Consumers' Association published a report of an inquiry made by its researchers into the comparative costs, merits and effectiveness of the United Kingdom's present system and the one that is in force in the German Federal Republic. All the evidence suggests that the German system, although it costs 20 or 30 times as much as ours, gives no greater protection to the consumer.
The proposals now under consideration reflect a reversion to the system of mandatory harmonisation first proposed by the Commission for fruit and vegetables in 1973. As I have indicated, this approach entails enormously increased cost without any increase in the protection of the consumer. The Government intend to oppose measures of this kind, and I hope that we can look to the support of the House in the forthcoming negotiations with our Community partners and the Commission.
Document 4101/80 proposes an amendment to the Community directive on fruit juices. Its major effect would be to prevent acidification of these juices with 1648 certain acids, notably citric acid. In this country the acidity of fruit juices has traditionally been adjusted by manufacturers to ensure a consistent product for the consumer. This adjustment is normally carried out by blending different varieties of juice, but occasionally, if suitable fruit is not available, small quantities of malic or citric acid have been used. This was the position before we joined the Community, but the Community directive that was agreed in 1975 limited the freedom of our manufacturers. In particular, it did not permit the acidification of apple juice, which is a major production interest for United Kingdom manufacturers.
In 1977 a shortage of Bramley apples, which are normally used to produce the desired acidification, gave rise to production difficulties. This was a pointer for the future, and when the first amendment to the directive was being discussed we secured a national derogation that permitted the addition of citric acid to apple juice. At that time the European Commission made it clear that this was to be only a temporary measure and that it would be seeking a permanent solution to the problem.
The proposal that we have before us today is the Commission's answer to that undertaking. It would mean that lemon juice would be the only permitted acidulant, and the Commission see this as a compromise, since some member States do not consider that acidification is necessary, and the use of lemon juice is more likely to be accepted by them.
However, acidification by lemon juice has a number of disadvantages. It alters the taste of apple juice, even when added in the very small quantities needed. The acidity of lemon juice can itself vary enormously, and some would argue that its addition to apple juice would, in effect, adulterate the named product.
The Government's view is that the proposal is not acceptable in its present form. We are not, therefore, prepared to accept this second amendment to the fruit juices directive.
Finally, I come to the proposed amendments—in document 5561/80—to the egg marketing standards. A large number of amendments are proposed. Many are drafting changes, to make the regulations clearer, and others are of little signifi- 1649 cance. There are, however, a number that have significant implications for our industry. The one that causes most concern is the proposed change in the method of date marking. At present there is the option to mark egg packs either with the date on which they were packed or with a coded week number. It is proposed that instead of the coded week number the dates of the beginning and end of the week in which the eggs were packed should be marked on the pack. Our consultations indicate a broad measure of consensus from all interests, including packers, retailers and consumers, that they would prefer a minimum durability date on the lines laid down in the Community labelling directive. This would mean that egg packs would be marked with "best before …" and a date that would be at the discretion of the packer to determine. My officials have been pressing this view in Brussels and will continue to do so.
Other significant proposals are the exclusion from the regulation of infertile eggs that have been incubated, the restricting of door-to-door sales to graded eggs, the requirement that all graded eggs should be packed, and changes in the definition of both large and small packs.
In discussions in Brussels my officials have been seeking amendments with a view to achieving the changes that would be in the best interests of those most concerned. In addition, they will seek some relaxation of the present very restrictive regulations regarding the information that can be put on egg packs.
I have touched briefly on the more important aspects of the proposals before the House this morning. The Government will continue to negotiate for improvements to all these proposals, and with the support of this House we shall hope to achieve settlements on these measures satisfactory to all United Kingdom interests.
§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)We have before us a fairly diverse series of proposed pieces of Community legislation which can be described loosely as food consumer protection measures. They are all about harmonisation. It is worth taking time to state what we see as the general principles against which such 1650 harmonisation measures should be judged. Indeed, what I am about to say is to some extent implicit in the motion.
First, any measure of this nature—an EEC directive or regulation—that is aimed at improving health standards—that is, reducing the risk to human health posed by additives to foodstuffs, methods of labelling or possible impurities—should be supported in principle. We may have satisfactory domestic controls on items that are produced for consumption or for packaging with food, but as we are increasingly importing more and more, especially from the rest of the European Community, it makes sense to have a Community measure that affords this protection.
Secondly, where there is a real need to remove non-tariff barriers, with which a great deal of harmonisation legislation is concerned, again we would regard that as justification for a measure of this nature. Indeed, it is fair to say that, perhaps of all the member States, the United Kingdom, largely through its imperial past, has a great tradition of free trade. Some would argue that it is a tradition of which we have had rather too much for our own good. Either way, I think that it follows that, because of our traditional open access to imports, it is in our own interests that we should seek to support measures that remove the non-tariff barriers that exist in other countries and limit our exports.
As I see it, those are the principles against which one should judge measures of this nature. There is a third consideration which one ought constantly to bear in mind, which is that if we are to lay down Community standards it is important that they are as international as possible. Above all, we should give due importance not just to the situation in the United States market, which is important to us, but, more crucially, to standards that have the authority of the United Nations or a United Nations-type organisation, be it the World Health Organisation or any other.
It is important to remind ourselves of the arguments that are used to justify measures of this nature. It was my experience during the four and a half years that I dealt with these matters that there was a great drive in the Commission for more and more harmonisation measures.
1651 of this type. Indeed, while there are instances when the Community is unfairly blamed for developments in this country that have nothing to do with it, it is also the case that we have not infrequently had harmonisation proposals which are wholly unjustified and which simply reflect the bureaucratic desire for more and more EEC legislation, and more and more uniformity in the legislation and standards that prevail throughout the different member States. Even from the Minister's remarks today it is clear that there are a number of instances of that in the measures now before us.
I shall be fairly brief in my comments on these matters. It must be said that the Scrutiny Committee was well-founded in recommending them for further consideration by the House, because they are potentially important.
I deal first with the draft directive on plastics, which would control the type of plastic materials and similar substances that are intended to come into contact with food. There can be no argument about the fact that some substances of a low molecular weight may migrate from plastic containers or wrappings into the food that they surround. Therefore, as the Minister acknowledged, there is no argument about the case for a provision of this nature to protect consumers from molecules that have migrated from the plastic surrounding the food that they have purchased, or the utensils off which they eat their food.
The United Kingdom has its own code of practice in this regard which applies to manufacturers of plastics and similar materials. It is generally accepted that there is a case for developing a Community list of the substances and materials which it is appropriate to use in the manufacture of such plastics and similar substances. If the proposal were to go down that road it would have widespread support, but something quite different is before us. It is proposed to measure the rate of migration of the molecules of low weight that could affect foodstuffs. As the Minister acknowledged, there will be no attempt to distinguish between those substances that are toxic and those that are not.
The Food Manufacturers Federation, together with many other associations, has pointed out that there is no agree- 1652 ment on the practicality of measuring the rate of migration. At best it is a lengthy and costly process. We do not dispute the Minister's view that there is a case, in principle, for some EEC measure and for some international agreement, at whatever level, to protect United Kingdom consumers, but it would make no sense to adopt the detailed proposals laid down in the directive. Indeed, it would be positively damaging, because some substances would be banned despite the fact that they pose no threat to health. The second draft directive sets maximum permitted levels for certain pesticide residues in raw cereals and, more crucially, in meat, poultry and dairy products.
There is no disagreement about the health objective. No one is more concerned to protect standards than is the Consumers' Association, yet it argues that the proposal is unjustified. The proposal would involve adopting a West German system. That system is no better than the one operated in Britain, and therefore there is no justification for imposing it on the United Kingdom. When the Labour Government dealt with such matters in relation to fruit and vegetables, and so on, they always argued that their pesticides safety precautions scheme worked well. They did not want to replace it with the more formal, statutory, bureaucratic and detailed arrangement that prevailed in some member States, particularly West Germany.
The standard proposed is in direct conflict with the standards advocated by the Joint World Health Organisation/Food and Agriculture Organisation Codex Alimentarius Commission. There can be no justification for developing new Community standards that are in direct conflict with standards that have been set on a wider basis, unless good reason can be found for having no faith in such international standards, and I do not believe that that is the case here. If we adopt the standards proposed, they might damage developing countries which, for climatic reasons, may be opposed to the different levels.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks on the draft directive for the harmonisation of regulations in the EEC concerning fruit juices and similar products. I shall go further than the Minister. It is nonsense for the EEC to try to prevent us from using citric acid or 1653 malic acid to adjust the taste and acidity of certain fruit juices. Let us take the example of apple juice. If a better, more consistent consumer product could be provided by adding such food acid from time to time, why should we be prevented from doing so? A country that did not produce lemons would be required to import them in order to add lemon juice to apple juice. How can that be justified? Once lemon juice is added to apple juice, it will cease to be apple juice.
This proposal is nonsense, and it is the type of proposal that brings the EEC into disrepute. There is no reason why we should not be allowed to continue to treat the juices in the way that we do. No one has suggested that there is a danger to health. It is preposterous that we should be forced to add lemon juice when we wish to adjust the acidity.
Finally, I turn to the last of the measures that we are discussing—that relating to marketing standards for eggs. Unlike the other measures, it is a proposed regulation that would have automatic effect in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will say whether this measure is being pursued with the same support and intensity as in the past. I gather that support for a regulation of this nature has dwindled somewhat throughout the Community. It occurs to me—I think that this is the view of some in the trade—that the momentum has gone out of the discussions and that we may not end up with a regulation along these lines in the foreseeable future.
As for date marking, I am glad that the Minister is adopting the line that has been taken by consumer organisations, including the consumers of the European Community group, who have made it clear to the Government that they favour a minimum durability approach rather than the present coding system, which is regarded by the majority as unsatisfactory.
I was interested in the Minister's remarks about producer and trade organisations. I had been under the impression that they were opposed to the change. I am encouraged by the Minister's comments to believe that they are adopting a more pragmatic approach to the suggestions and to the position that has been taken by consumer organisations, especially in the United Kingdom.
1654 The intention is to force farmers who make door-to-door sales of eggs to grade their eggs. It seems that the farmer who sells eggs direct to consumers will be forced to apply EEC marketing standards. I do not know whether it is intended to apply the regulation to farmgate sales. If the intention is to prevent a producer from entering into a free contract with a consumer who arrives at his farm or goes to his farm shop, or to force a farmer who has two or three vans and goes round the town selling eggs direct to subject his eggs to grading standards, and to sell only those standards of eggs and have them clearly designated as such, it is a monstrous and unjustified intrusion into an important element of trade in the United Kingdom.
No one will tell me that when a consumer buys half a dozen or a dozen eggs direct from a farm he will find it of any benefit to have had the eggs subjected to grading. Consumers can see the eggs, and they will know the farmer. They know that the eggs will be fresh, and they will know roughly their size. If they go to supermarkets or shops, that is a different matter. To try to impose such rigidity on door-to-door sales is a piece of bureaucratic nonsense. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government have no intention of going down that road.
It is fair to say that the Minister has indicated that the Government have no intention of accepting many of the unacceptable proposals that are contained in these proposed pieces of EEC legislation. I hope that the Minister will respond to the issues that I have raised.
§ 1.5 pm
§ Mr. WigginI shall reply briefly, because the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has shown the harmony that prevails on both sides of the House. I am grateful to him for dealing with the issue in his usual knowledgeable and careful way. Where he has expressed a personal opinion, I assure him that it will be taken into account, bearing in mind his knowledge both of the political and technical aspects of a number of the questions that arise.
On the two questions about eggs, the proposal was originally returned to the Commission for revision. This is the second time round. I shall not seek to 1655 comment on the enthusiasm with which it is being pursued, but Government decisions will be necessary on the question of how to deal with the proposals at meetings that may take place this month. Therefore, there is an element of urgency, if not enthusiasm.
There has been a slight shift in the British position on door-to-door sales and the packaging of eggs. The National Farmers Union has withdrawn its objection to the proposition that door-to-door sales should be only for graded eggs. As I understand it, the philosophy is that the consumer should be protected by being certain that the product is what it is said to be. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. There are two precise ways to consider the matter. First, we could say that we must have maximum protection, grading, packaging that cannot be disturbed, and information on the pack about its contents. Secondly, my feelings are that that is intervening in an area where, on the whole, the consumer does not need protecting. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point of view. He will be interested to learn that the various organisations consulted do not necessarily share his view.
The hon. Gentleman is right about fruit juice. We have both made similar remarks, as we have done also on pesticide residues. His explanation and understanding of the migration of plastics is correct. He mentioned the Food Manufacturers Federation, which, I suspect, sent me the same helpful note on the subject. There is harmony with that organisation on the general line to be taken. We have taken on board its specific points, which have already been stated.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, but the hon. Gentleman raised a number of matters of principle. It is not an appropriate moment to enter a lengthy debate. Suffice it to say that when he says that we should oppose harmonisation for its own sake he has my 1,000 per cent. support. There is nothing more time-wasting or ridiculous than arguing some of the pettifogging ideas that are thought up by people with nothing better to do. One of the great pities is that the Commission has allowed some of the ideas to come forward. Before such proposals see the light of day the Com- 1656 mission should be certain that they have an objective.
Whether the three objectives stated by the hon. Gentleman are comprehensive, detailed or necessarily correct I should not care to say, but there must be a useful purpose. In some of the proposals one has to seek to find any purpose except the perpetuation of more regulations and all the things that we oppose.
The subject is of great importance even if, on a Friday, it has not attracted many hon. Members from either side of the House. I am sure that the debate will be studied carefully in Brussels. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That this House takes note of European Community documents R/1444/78 and Corrigendum and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's updated explanatory memorandum of 24 October 1980 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food; 4709/80 on levels of pesticides residues in and on cereals for human consumption and foodstuffs of animal origin; 4101/80 on the approximation of Member States' laws on fruit juices and certain similar products; and 5561/80 on egg marketing standards: and while supporting the underlying objective of removing barriers to trade and protecting the consumer, supports the Government's intention to oppose proposals which would involve burdens on United Kingdom production and trade interests or costs which would not be commensurate with the benefits in terms of improved consumer safeguards or the removal of technical barriers to trade.