British Agriculture and Food Labelling

No. I have been generous in giving way and I want to make some progress. The Government's own food watchdog, the Food Standards Agency, states in its best practice guidance:"““Consumers expect meat labelled 'produce of' to come from animals that have been born, reared and slaughtered in those countries and we consider this to be good practice to label accordingly.””" Unfortunately, that is simply guidance on good practice; in the real world, poor labelling persists. Despite the FSA guidelines and clear evidence that consumers are being misled and want to see country of origin information clearly displayed on food, too little has been done. The Government say that they are aware of the problem. Last week, the Secretary of State pledged to"““stamp out unclear, inaccurate or misleading labelling””." The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), even went on Jamie Oliver's recent programme, which did so much to inform consumers about the ways in which they are being misled, to agree that the current situation is a ““disgrace””. I agree with her. I regret, however, that warm words have been followed by little action. Consumers, retailers and food producers have been frustrated by repeated promises to introduce voluntary schemes, which have clearly not worked. As long ago as 1998, the then Agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), promised to take action. A Ministry of Agriculture press release declared:"““Consumers win as… retailers agree on labelling””." The following year, the Minister came to the House to proclaim his three objectives, and said:"““I want to give clear unambiguous information on the real place of origin, not place of processing or place of slicing; I want to clamp down on misleading place of origin descriptions; and I want to make further progress by lobbying the European Commission and other member states for a system of clear country of origin labelling.””—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 366, c. 1126.]" That was 10 years ago; 10 years on, Ministers are saying exactly the same thing. Despite repeated promises, there is no adequate voluntary agreement and there is no acceptable deal in Europe. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State has now decided that the way forward is a reheated voluntary agreement at home and yet more negotiations with the Commission. The Secretary of State told last week's National Farmers Union conference that he had met representatives of the supermarkets to discuss this voluntary agreement. Perhaps the Minister of State will update the House about the progress of those talks, as there is little sign of any action. What of the stores outside the big four supermarkets, which account for around £40 billion-worth of grocery sales every year—some 35 per cent. of the total? Any voluntary scheme that includes only the major supermarkets would cover less than two thirds of sales. I am afraid that after 10 years of promises, we on the Conservative Benches are sceptical—a view shared by the farming industry—about the chances of meaningful voluntary agreement with the retailers, because those retailers are not willing to provide the information that the public want. The Irish pork scare last year showed the drawback of unclear labelling. Supermarkets withdrew Irish meat in case it had been contaminated, but there was no guarantee that it had not been processed somewhere in this country and was sitting in our fridges with a British label on it. We live in an age of consumer choice and transparency. Anyone who stands in the way is on the wrong side of the argument. The British Retail Consortium has claimed that in the labelling of food,"““it's the process rather than the origin that's important””." I completely disagree: the production is important, but consumers expect to know the origin of meat, not just where it was last processed. A recent survey found that an overwhelming majority of the public—89 per cent.—felt that a meat product labelled as British or produced in the UK should mean that it was from an animal reared in Britain. There is no suggestion that food retailers are systematically attempting to mislead the public, and the FSA guidelines exist to prevent that, but unclear labelling that is perfectly permissible under current rules does, in fact, allow consumers to be misled. That is the effect, whether it is intended or not. It is because the retailers—or I should say, some of the retailers—do not accept the need for country of origin labelling that voluntary agreement has proved impossible. It is noticeable, for instance, that Marks and Spencer has accepted the need for compulsory country of origin labelling.