Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will set out a précis of the arguments for his benefit and for that of other Members. I do not want to dwell on them at length, however, because I also need to explore the aspects of European law that are unjustifiably held to be fatal to the Bill. I was saying that the Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill that I introduced in 2009 is worth some attention, particularly because of its sponsors. I reiterate that that Bill is identical to today's Bill, save for the names of the sponsors. My 2009 Bill had a range of sponsors from different parties, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who I am delighted to see sitting in his place today. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to introduce a Bill that I know has the support of two people who are now Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I do not wish to detain the House by talking about the cheating that goes on, but I will briefly summarise the problem. The current rules do not do the job adequately, and consumers continue to be misled. In the case of certain foodstuffs, no indication need be given that the product is made with imported meat. Examples include the Tesco chicken dinner in its range of children's meals, which simply states ““Produced in the UK””, although the chicken actually comes from Thailand. Sometimes a phrase will be used to imply the country of origin. For example, items from the Bird's Eye Great British Menu range turn out, on closer inspection, to contain imported meat. At present, producers of imported meat can lawfully use the Union flag on packaging to imply that a product is British, even when it is not, and they do so. They can, and do, import meat from overseas, package it here and say that it has been produced in the UK. There are not many people out there who disagree with what I am saying about the need to address the problem. An ICM poll for the Honest Food campaign showed that 87% of consumers in the survey believe that the Government should ensure that the country of origin is clearly shown on food products. The survey also showed that 89% believe that when a product such as sausages or bacon is labelled as ““British”” or ““produced in the UK””, it should mean that the sausages or bacon are from an animal reared in Britain. The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) is a sponsor of the Bill. When he was an Agriculture Minister 12 years ago in 1999, he told us:"““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””.—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 366, c. 1126.]" In the last Labour Administration, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said:"““A pork pie made in Britain from Danish pork can legitimately be labelled as a British pork pie””." He added:"““That's nonsense, and it needs to change.””" I agree, and so did the farming Minister at the time, Jane Kennedy, who was then the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree—and she is, I might add, very much missed. She appeared on the excellent Channel 4 programme, ““Jamie Saves our Bacon””, and told Jamie Oliver that misleading labelling was ““a disgrace””. Once again, I agree. Some progress has been made with voluntary codes, but they are voluntary. As I said in seeking leave to bring in this Bill, significant concerns persist about the effectiveness of voluntary agreements, while the demand for mandatory country-of-origin labelling continues to grow. Helen Ferrier, the chief science and regulatory affairs officer for the National Farmers Union said of the guidance from the British Retail Consortium:"““Unless all companies sign up and then consistently stick to their promises, some consumers will still be misled.””" Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance also welcomed the guidance and urged food organisations to sign up to its standards, but she also lamented:"““The code is not mandatory, which would offer further protection still.””" At the annual general meeting of the National Federation of Women's Institutes in 2010, a resolution calling for the mandatory, clear labelling of food with its true country of origin was passed unanimously. The Minister might like to reflect that this is an organisation not to be trifled with, as a former Prime Minister found out to his cost. The chair of the Women's Institute, Ruth Bond said:"““We know that consumers want to make informed choices, and surely it is not right that consumers remain dependent on the goodwill of retailers signing up to a voluntary scheme. Without legislation there is no guarantee that consumers will get the choice and information they are demanding.””" Let me turn to deal briefly with the Bill. It is a very short Bill of two clauses, including the ““Short title and commencement””, so I suppose it is what most of us would call a one-clause Bill. It provides definitions of meat products under the rubric of ““Country of origin labelling””. More extended provisions explain in more detail the definition of ““Meat component”” and the circumstances in which the word ““British”” can be used—or where it cannot:"““No meat product may be labelled 'British' unless the animal from which the meat was derived was born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom.””" The key issue I want to devote most of my time to exploring is whether there are fatal flaws in the Bill because of European Union law. Some people believe that to be the case, but I am not sure that it is. Let me start by pointing out the terms of the EC directive—the original directive 2000/13/EC. It states in paragraph (6) of the preamble:"““The prime consideration for any rules on the labelling of foodstuffs should be the need to inform and protect the consumer.””" Paragraph (8) continues:"““Detailed labelling, in particular giving the exact nature and characteristics of the product, which enables the consumer to make his choice in full knowledge of the facts is the most appropriate””—" and now we come to the most interesting bit—"““since it creates the fewest obstacles to free trade.””" More detailed labelling means fewer obstacles to free trade. Paragraph (14) of the preamble continues:"““The rules on labelling should also prohibit the use of information that would mislead the purchaser””." Moving on from the preamble to the articles, article 2 states quite clearly in the first paragraph:"““The labelling and methods used must not…be such as could mislead the purchaser to a material degree””." All over the directive, it is perfectly clear that the purpose is to protect the interests of consumers. It is not at all obvious therefore that what I am doing—it could easily be argued that I am simply trying to transpose into UK law, albeit more effectively than hitherto, the requirements of this directive—is in any sense contrary to European law. However, I accept that there is an argument to be had. My contention is that this is about consumer choice, not about restricting markets in any way. In order to make the point in more detail, let me turn to the leading text on the free movement of goods. It is the fourth edition of ““Free Movement of Goods in the European Community: under Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty””, by Mr Peter Oliver. As it makes clear, an extant jurisprudence offers a considerable opportunity for complex discussion. It states:"““Article 28 (formerly article 30) provides: 'Quantitative restrictions on imports and exports and all measures having equivalent effect shall…be prohibited between Member States…the concept of measures of equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions differs from quantitative restrictions themselves in that it is considerably wider and more complex.””" In other words, it is quite possible that even if someone was not trying—as I am not trying—to restrict the imports of goods by providing that meat sold here must be accurately labelled, that could be the equivalent effect although it was not the intention, and article 28 prohibits measures that have the effect of quantitative restrictions.