HC Deb 17 April 1986 vol 95 cc1106-10

'In section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted— (2) A consumers' committee shall—

  1. (a) consist of a chairman and not less than ten other members, who shall be such persons as appear to the Minister, after consultation as to one member with the Co-operative Union, to represent the interests of consumers; and
  2. (b) be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on issues of food policy affecting consumers.".'.—[Mr. John.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The report that I heard last week that the cuckoo had not been sighted in Britain because of the cold weather is completely wrong. It has been sighted in the Agriculture Bill. The cuckoo in this case is new clause 4, which has so far displaced all the other business in the Bill. It has taken, properly, five and a half hours to debate it. My complaint is that whoever arranged for the Report stage and Third Reading in one day, took no account of that. It has produced a total distortion of the time allowed for debate and a total nonsense of the work of the Committee. I am not impressed with the way in which the Government have added to the Bill on Report.

That said, it is a pleasure to have moved new clause 1, the purpose of which is to extend the remit of consumer committees in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The problem with consumer affairs and the growing interest in consumer affairs in agriculture is becoming patent, and many Labour Members—their view is shared throughout the House—are anxious that the committees' influence should be increased. That is the purpose of the new clause. The time when shortage dictated an automatic market has passed, and what we and our fathers faced was competition from abroad. If British agriculture is to survive and prosper, it must pay much more attention to changing consumer tastes, not only because the consumer wants good quality food at reasonable prices, with a wide choice, but because it is good for farmers to ensure that there is discipline to provide food at the right price and the right quality.

Consumers want to buy such food, and there have been many complaints about the dearth of British resources. There is a great debate about diet and health, and there is great concern about additives and labelling, all of which are here to stay, and all of which must be recognised in our dealings with consumer affairs. Section 19 of the Agriculture Marketing Act 1958, which set up the consumers' committee within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, provides that there should be a chairman and no fewer than six members of the committee; secondly, that it should deal with any scheme, which must be approved by Ministers. Since it was set up in 1958, all but three schemes have been repealed, and the only schemes that are in operation are those for wool, milk and potatoes. Therefore, the consumer committee in the Ministry is limited in the type of commodity with which it may deal. It should be able to range across the wide spectrum of food.

Secondly, the committee is limited in the investigations that it may initiate. For example, it cannot directly intervene on behalf of consumers on topics such as import controls and food processing techniques. The latter are of paramount importance to the consumer. The body is limited not only in the range of topics with which it may deal, but in the initiatives that it can take. I think that that is wrong. New clause 1 would therefore substitute for subsection (2) a consumers' committee consisting of a chairman and at least 10 members, the addition in number being designed to take account of the wider sphere of work given to the committee, which would be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on issues of food policy. That wider remit is widely overdue.

I do not believe that by transforming the ministerial committee one could achieve the consumer input into food matters that is required. We need an outside body to consider the matter. Some body analagous to the National Consumer Council will have to be set up in future, with Government funding.

10.15 pm

The consumers' committee within the Ministry of Agriculture will be more relevant if we adopt new clause 1. It will be wider in scope than it is now and more relevant in the type of work that it can initiate. If we keep the consumers' committee in its present form it will speak with an increasingly irrelevant voice on a declining number of subjects, and we will have the worst of all possible worlds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

I am glad to have this opportunity to place on record the Government's views on the representation of consumer interests. We attach great importance to the matter. Consumers have a real, proper and growing concern about the formulation of policies which have a direct bearing on the availability, quality and price of food. I can therefore register sympathy with a number of points which have been made in this respect by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).

I would not want the House to form the impression that the present consumer consultation arrangements are either nonexistent or at best inadequate, or confined only to the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is not the case. We regularly consult consumer interests on the Government's position in relation to the annual price-fixing proposals when determining the Government's negotiating stance. However, as in the case of all consultations on that matter, the realities of discussions in the Agriculture Council require a certain amount of flexibility to be retained in order to make progress. That does not mean that we lack sympathy for the consumer view. There are also regular and extensive discussions with consumer interests in one of my Department's other main areas of responsibility, namely, that of food standards and safety. There is a statutory obligation on Ministers to consult all interested parties, including consumer representatives, before making regulations under the Food Act. The Food Advisory Committee provides independent advice to Ministers on food matters, and its members are drawn from a wide range of interests, including consumers. Of course, one is always prepared to listen seriously to suggestions for improvement. The consumers' committees established under section 19 of the 1958 Act perform a useful task in monitoring the effect on consumers of agricultural marketing schemes. They were set up in connection with the regulated product contained in each scheme. Those schemes have been overtaken by time. Only those for potatoes, milk and wool remain. They are not slow to come forward with recommendations to Ministers, although alternative points of view are often put forward too.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

The hon. Lady suggests that if anyone puts forward improvements she will consider them. Will she accept that on the question of agriculture and prices, she should contain prices and exhort the Minister of Agriculture, when he goes to Europe, to resist continual demands by the French and Germans for food price rises? That would be the best deal that the Government could give the consumers.

Mrs. Fenner

No hon. Member present has the opportunity to say more clearly than I do, having spoken at the Dispatch Box on and off since 1972, that the past few years are the only ones during which the food price index has remained below the retail prices index generally.

Mr. Rogers

That is not the Minister's fault. It should have fallen even further.

Mrs. Fenner

It could hardly have fallen further. Food prices have been stable.

It would be misleading to think that the new clause introduces some radically new concept into the area of consumer consultation, because it does not. Much of the machinery is already in place. In such circumstances, it does not seem sensible to introduce the changes proposed because they would overlap and duplicate many of the existing functions of consumer organisations which advise us and are always consulted over the years. They have built up an expertise in the areas for which they are responsible.

Mr. John

Outside consumer bodies must advise on food, such as milk and potatoes. One does not complain about an overlap with the ministerial committee in that respect. As it is the only ministerial committee, why can it not be given a decent remit?

Mrs. Fenner

I submit that it has the remit written into the Acts. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that since writing those Acts and setting up marketing schemes, consumer expertise and sophistication throughout the Western world has grown. Those bodies are much more powerful and have a great input into every Western country's economy, including ours. They have a great deal of say. Nevertheless, I would welcome any progress which the consumer organisations can make in increasing the consumers' impact in Brussels and other member states, possibly through increased co-operation among the consumer organisations in western Europe.

In a newspaper article, the hon. Member for Pontypridd has said that my Ministry has appeared to see its main task as representing farmers. That is just not so. I have already mentioned the liaison arrangements with consumers, and we also consult food manufacturers and distributors. In determining policy we cannot give absolute priority to any one point of view. We must take account of the public interests and public expenditure constraints. We must take account of what is practicable and negotiable in Brussels. There is a balance to strike. It is in the long-term interest of farmers that they should take account of the consumer interest, and that policies should be formulated with that in mind, together with other considerations. That is what my Department does, and since I joined it in 1972, and became the first woman to be appointed a Minister there, that has been one of my major preoccupations.

Finally, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to amend the 1958 Act in the way pfoposed, as its provisions deal with the regulated product of agricultural marketing schemes, rather than with wider agricultural and food policy issues.

The new clause, apart from being legally unsound, would serve only to confuse rather than to clarify. For those reasons, we are unable to adopt the changes which it would introduce in place of arrangements which I regard as being generally satisfactory, although I never have a closed mind about consumer representation.

Mr. Maclennan

The purpose of this new clause seems to be to give the consumer a new statutory body to speak more generally on marketing schemes than do consumer committees. However, I cannot see how this proposal would greatly benefit the consumer. In these matters of determining food policy, as the Minister said, the consumer's voice is represented by several existing statutory and other bodies and, in particular, by the National Consumer Council, which has a general remit and the members of which are in my experience, annually voicing their views about matters of food policy.

Mr. John

If the hon. Member had talked to the NCC he would have heard its complaint that little has neither the personnel nor the resources to deal adequately with so important and widespread an area as food. It would welcome the setting up of a properly funded analagous body. In the meantime, within the Ministry—and that is the point of the amendment—we would have a voice speaking for consumers in the councils of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Maclennan

I thought that the earlier point the hon. Member was making was that he wanted an independent voice and not a voice within the Ministry. It seems that he wants to have the argument both ways. I believe that consumers are well represented by the NCC and other statutory bodies that regularly make representations. I would not want to see their independent position undermined by a body appointed in the way the hon. Member has suggested.

Mr. John

I am not sure whether to marvel at the hon. Member's naivety or at his stupidity; perhaps it is an unlikely combination of both. The hon. Member has clearly never troubled to consult the NCC. He has exuded complacency. This bears ill with the pretentions of the alliance to be the champion of the consumer. He is opposing the extension of the remit of a body that exists already within the Ministry. He appeared not to understand that situation very clearly. I suggest that, in his busy schedule, he find time to see the NCC representatives and ask them whether they think they have sufficient remit, resources and personnel in order to deal with the matter of food. If he does so, the complacency he has shown in his short and misguided contribution this evening will rapidly disappear.

Mr. MacLennan

The hon. Member is really remarkably arrogant about these matters. I must remind him that for five years I served as Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and dealt, on an almost weekly basis, with the NCC. I am bound to say that his experience in other fields may be considerable, but I do not believe that he can speak with equal authority on this matter. The NCC would be horrified if it thought that its independent role as a representative of the consumer was to be usurped by a creature of a Department of State. I believe that the hon. Member's suggestion is positively damaging to consumer interest. However, had he not felt obliged to make his extraordinarily immoderate response to my speech, I should not have had to reiterate that point.

Mr. John

No one knows as much about anything as the hon. Gentleman pretends to know about everything, so I bow to his seal of guarantee on arrogance because it seems that no one is as well qualified in this House as he to give such a seal. He simply does not understand the new clause or the point I am making. I have said that two things are necessary. As he will know from his vast ministerial experience, at present there is a committee within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to advise the Minister on consumer affairs. That committee deals with only three areas, namely, wool, potatoes and milk. In order to extend its influence and make its remit proper and understandable it should be given a much wider remit, not because I believe it would replace outside independent bodies. I deliberately said that I believe an outside independent body is also necessary. If we are to have a ministerial committee, it should be given a proper job to do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ponder that and come up with more constructive ideas about the protection of the consumer when he next speaks on this subject.

10.30 pm

I regret that from the Minister I did not get even tea and sympathy; perhaps I got water and sympathy. She, too, in a sense believes in Dr. Pangloss's claim that all is best in the best of all possible worlds. The drafting of the new clause may not be perfect, but she did not answer the principle of it, which is that if a consumer committee in the Department is to be relied on, it should be given a proper job to do. There is no point in asking the committee to examine a scheme if its members feel frustrated and that their initiative is severely limited.

For those reasons, it has been worth airing the role of the ministerial committee. It is not designed to replace the outside independent body. This committee already exists within the counsels of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it would be appropriate to extend its remit.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to