An agriculture debate on ‘Country of Origin Labelling’ need not occupy the attention of every MP and, to prove it, only a handful of honourable members turned up. The event engaged the House for 2½hours on the 24 February and, for all it achieved, it might as well not have taken place at all.
Nick Herbert introduced the amendment calling for clear labelling to show where meat products came from, when they are offered for sale. As the law stands, chickens stuffed with hormones or animals which have been reared in conditions that would not be tolerated in the UK can be imported and, provided they are butchered, sliced or prepared in some form of final packaging, can be labelled as ‘produced in Britain’. They can even be decorated with the Union Jack to give customers the misleading impression that they are buying homereared produce.
Speakers on both sides deplored this situation and the fact that retailers operate it under voluntary guidance only. Cases were put to show the impact it was having on farmers in their respective constituencies. Pig farmers in particular were going out of business, being unable to produce as cheaply under the UK rules of husbandry, as the Danes, for example, under the rules applicable there. MPs for Shropshire and Herefordshire proudly claimed that British beef was the finest obtainable and, similarly the quality of Welsh lamb was extolled. Our agriculture could, and should, largely feed the nation, saving food-miles of transport and foreign exchange to pay for foreign products.
The logic was unassailable and there was consensus from all parties – with the exception of Rob Morris (Lab) who thought the debate should not even be taking place.
The Secretary of State concluded the debate by complimenting the speakers on their thoughtfulness. He then rendered the whole exercise meaningless by saying that, although he basically agreed that the labelling should be accurate in showing the origin of the meat so that consumers should not be misled, he would not waste the EU Commissioner’s time by proposing it, because it was certain to be rejected by him, with the concurrence of 26 other members, as an Irish proposal had previously been turned down.
It seems that the Europeans, having rigged the CAP to suit themselves before we joined the EEC, might lose some business if British buyers could see just where the the meat they were buying came from. This must show a lack of confidence in the comparative quality of the EU product, given the less zealous application of what are supposed to be common standards of husbandry. They are obviously nervous that British housewives might show a preference for home-grown local food, in the same way that they support farmers’ markets. So although the Minister agreed with the principle of transparency, and recognised the damage being done to our farmers, he refused to take up cudgels on Britain’s behalf, in order not to tarnish his European credentials.
Having rendered the debate irrelevant, MPs from wherever they had been lurking in the recesses of the building trooped dutifully into their designated lobbies to confirm, with Labour’s inbuilt majority, that the matter would be consigned to Westminster’s dustbin (presumably to be cleared fortnightly, if they can force the lid of the wheelie bin shut). The lobby fodder had not attended or participated in the debate, and it is doubtful whether they had interrupted doing their pools or chatting over a pint, to glance at a screen relaying the arguments, or thinking for themselves at all, before answering the division bell.
To what deplorable depths our government has descended! We are incapable of passing a simple piece of legislation, which MPs from all parties and the Minister himself agreed would be in our best interest, because we are too craven to say to the EU “this is what we are doing, like it or lump it”.
Our membership of the EU is entirely politician-driven, with the electorate being denied any say in the matter. This was one futile debate, but the same futility applies to debates on subjects governed by competences that our politicians have ceded to Brussels, handing over sovereignty of which they were merely the custodians.
It is time for a rethink, a re-negotiation, a restitution of our governance – a return to real debate, a reversal of overregulation and a reconnection with the voting public.
