Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I suggest that the hon. Lady seeks to intervene in the hon. Gentleman’s Adjournment debate with Ministry of Justice Ministers on Tuesday.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Unfortunately, Richard III did not have much time to plan his funeral. I do not think he would have been very worried about where he was buried, but he did live and die a Catholic, and so at his funeral could there not be some aspect of Catholicism to represent his life’s work?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Every Sunday, I say, “I believe in one holy Catholic Church.” The more serious point is that whatever service takes place at Leicester cathedral, I am sure that the Dean of Leicester will want to involve representatives of the local Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, one wants to try to ensure that an event such as the respectful reburial of an English king is carried out in a way that does not cause controversy and that is respectful and accords with the wishes of the whole community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessments he has received from independent sources of the quality of the work carried out by the National Audit Office.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

A number of external reviews are in place to provide independent assessments of the quality of the National Audit Office’s work: the NAO’s financial audit work is subject to independent review by the audit quality review team of the Financial Reporting Council; the quality of the NAO’s value-for-money reports is independently reviewed by independent experts from Oxford university’s Said business school and Risk Solutions; and the NAO’s external auditors conduct an annual value-for-money assessment, which is reported to the Public Accounts Commission.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am most grateful for that reply. All Members would normally agree that the National Audit Office does a very good job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was once a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Did he see the vicious attack on the Chair of that Committee by the Justice Secretary just a few days ago, alleging that she was biased, unprincipled and should not chair that Committee? Is that right?

[Mr Leigh]

I do not think it is for me as Chair of the Public Accounts Commission to try to second-guess vigorous debate. In my humble opinion, the PAC under its present Chair and with its present members does an excellent job in holding the Executive to account, and I am sure on all occasions it would avoid party politics.

[Mr Speaker]

I dare say the right hon. Member concerned will bear stoically and with fortitude whatever arrows have been pointed in her direction.

Ash Dieback Disease

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

It was not I who had a problem identifying the pathogen; it was the international authorities, including the Danish authorities that the right hon. Lady mentions, who had reason to suspect that the pathogen was not the one that was initially identified, and that it was less virulent. That was why Europe and the world, frankly, took their eye off the ball to a certain extent and did not recognise the threat that Chalara represented to the Danish forests, for instance. Of course we work closely with our colleagues in other European countries and learn from their information, but I am afraid we cannot second-guess the international consensus.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The ash tree is known as the Lincolnshire tree. Indeed, my home in Lincolnshire is surrounded by them, and if only a couple fell over, my home would be completely demolished. We therefore take the problem very seriously in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister accept that there have been reports of nursery imports carrying the disease coming into Lincolnshire, and that the reason why such diseases have taken off in the past is that Governments have not had sufficient grip and have not been severe—ruthless even—by stopping them at their inception?

[Mr Heath]

As I have indicated, we need to take tree and plant diseases very seriously. There is of course evidence that saplings have brought the disease into the country, which was precisely why we applied the voluntary moratorium and have now moved to a ban, which comes into effect today. That means that no trees have been imported on a commercial basis since early spring.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We are not yet there with a vaccination programme. If this vaccine is only 50% to 60% effective, a significant number of cattle will be either diseased or, perhaps, vaccinated. Until we can differentiate between them, we cannot go to the Commission and no neighbouring country would want to buy stock from us. This is a real, practical problem. I reassure the hon. Lady that I am as keen as her to get to the position of having a vaccine, and I promise that we will work on this over the next year. We are spending £15.5 million over the next four years on top of the £40-odd million that we spent recently. This is a real priority, but we are not in that position yet.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When I was lucky enough to serve on the agriculture committee nearly 20 years ago, I remember the then Chairman saying that we had to have a badger cull in selected areas to deal with this disease. Since then, Governments have been hopelessly indecisive and weak and, as a result, our farming community has undergone untold misery. Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will now get a grip and that he will be swayed only by science and not by emotions, and save our farmers from this terrible disease?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend emphatically that we will stand by this policy. As I have said, there is no country in the western world where such policies do not apply. We should consider the situation in New Zealand with possums and that in Australia with buffalo, and look at what every other western European country is doing. A cull is taking place in Ireland as we speak. On Monday I talked to a farmer in Burgundy, where badgers are not protected. There is no other country where they are not bearing down on disease in wildlife and in cattle. We have to do both.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that Lincolnshire is in revolt on this issue? The last time we rebelled, it was against Henry VIII, who called us his “most brute and beestelie” of counties. This is not good enough. The Minister must support the people of Lincolnshire in this great campaign.

[Mr Paice]

My noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach has assured me, within the Department, of the concern expressed throughout Lincolnshire, but we have to be consistent in our application of the criteria. As I have just described, we felt that the whole application was rather too loose. We have an appeal to consider and if Lincolnshire people come forward with a variation on the application, that will also be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

We have to be realistic, and I want to be: no code of practice or compulsory contract will solve all the woes of the dairy industry. I believe that a voluntary code is better because the EU legislation on a statutory code restricts what can be in it to only a certain list of headings. A voluntary code would allow a wider range of headings. The stumbling block in negotiations appears—obviously I am not integrally involved, as this is a matter for the industry—to be over the period of notice that a farmer can give to leave a contract, if they do not like a price or other change, and over the period of notice that a processer can give the farmer. That is the point of difference, and the point on which I encourage both sides to find a compromise.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T4. I was horrified to learn recently that three Departments, which will remain nameless, have actually increased their operating costs over the past two years. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she has reduced operating costs in her Department?

[Mrs Spelman]

We have cut administrative spend by £140 million since May 2010, which is an 11% reduction in cash terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

8. What assessment the Public Accounts Commission has made of the most effective piece of work undertaken by the National Audit Office in 2011-12.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

The Public Accounts Commission’s role is not to assess individual pieces of work, but each year we ask the National Audit Office’s external auditors to assess the value-for-money aspect of the NAO. The NAO’s annual report shows that in 2010-11 it influenced the Government to improve public services in key areas such as financial management, and saved the UK taxpayer more than £1 billion.

[Mr Hollobone]

What investigation does my hon. Friend think will be the most interesting, exciting and effective in 2012-13?

[Mr Leigh]

Probably the most successful piece of work done by the NAO is its recent report on central Government’s use of consultants, which had a financial impact amounting to more than £323 million. I am convinced that we could save a great deal more money in the operation of central Government: many billions of pounds.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has confounded me. I thought he was going to say that he was spoilt for choice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What recent discussions the Public Accounts Commission has had on ways in which the National Audit Office can be made more effective and efficient.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

The Public Accounts Commission discusses the NAO’s use of resources twice a year. Last November we endorsed its strategy for the three years from April 2011, which included plans to save 15% in nominal terms—21% in real terms—over that three-year period. The commission looked at the NAO’s efficiency gain in March when we examined its draft estimate. The commission will next meet on 7 December to consider the NAO’s proposed resource requirements for the three years starting in April 2012.

[Mr Sheerman]

Have the hon. Gentleman and the commission considered introducing the same sort of reforms that the Government have produced for the Audit Commission? Has he considered using the big five private accountancy firms more widely, or has he learned some lessons from the disaster that is the Audit Commission reform?

[Mr Leigh]

All that has happened so far—we will discuss this at our meeting on 7 December—is that the Government have proposed that the NAO take over from the Audit Commission solely responsibility for the preparation and maintenance of the code of practice, which sets a framework for the audit of local bodies, together with associated guidance for local auditors. The NAO will also be able, when reporting to Parliament on the activities of central Departments, to examine the impact of policies administered by local bodies. The NAO is making preparations for those potential areas of work. We will give it sufficient resources to enable it to do that work responsibly and properly.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

When the National Audit Office produces excellent reports, such as the recent report on flood defences, would my hon. Friend consider allowing the Select Committees concerned to debate their contents and conclusions, rather than just the Public Accounts Committee?

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. She knows that I was, in a previous incarnation, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. We were keen, and remain keen, for the National Audit Office to extend its work so that it reports not just to the Public Accounts Committee but to all Select Committees. I am happy to take her suggestion back to the National Audit Office.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is underselling himself. He served with great distinction as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for two Parliaments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

In response to the UK’s fiscal situation, the National Audit Office’s strategy for the three years from April 2011 set out plans to save 15% in nominal terms and 21% in real terms over that period. In exploring the strategy in November, the commission considered the effect of the cost reductions on public spending and on the NAO’s work on the use of resources by public sector bodies. The commission concluded that the cost reduction proposals were sound, and it approved the NAO’s budgets for the three-year period.

[Mr Binley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he recognise that the National Audit Office generates about 11 times its cost in savings? Was the commission therefore wise to create a reduction? Should the NAO not be given its usual allowance of resources to allow it to save more money for the general public?

[Mr Leigh]

Normally, I agree with my hon. Friend, but the NAO cannot be exempt from the pressure on the budgets of all Departments. It is vital that the NAO leads by example. Under the guidance of the commission, it is doing as many reports as possible, more economically and more speedily, and is saving more money for the taxpayer.

Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bacon]

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.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s Bill, but I wonder what other countries in the EU do. It is difficult to imagine the French, for instance, tolerating the position that exists in this country, and they are better at protecting their own meat market. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten the House.

[Mr Bacon]

I will. I shall be citing a number of cases that have been heard in the European courts, which illustrate that not just the French but many other countries have come up against these issues and that there is a developed jurisprudence.

As Peter Oliver says in his book,

“in determining whether a particular measure falls under Article 28…it is imperative to proceed in two stages. The first question to ask is: does this measure restrict imports (or exports) so as to be caught by Article 28…? If so, then the second question arises, namely: is the measure nevertheless justified in Community law and thus lawful?”

Mr Oliver examines explicitly the question of the obligation to make a declaration of origin. He makes it clear that in “certain circumstances”, case law has held—in the past—that

“the requirement that the importer make a declaration of origin is contrary to Article 28. This was laid down in the Donckerwolke judgment, already discussed”

—earlier in his book, that is—

“where the Court held:

‘the requirement by the importing Member State of the indication of the country of origin on the customs declaration document for products in free circulation…does not in itself constitute a measure of equivalent effect’”

—in other words, one that would produce the equivalent of quantitative restrictions—

“‘if the goods in question are covered by measures of commercial policy adopted by that State in conformity with the Treaty.’”

The judgment went on to say, however—and this is the point—

“‘such a requirement would, however, fall under the prohibition contained in Article [28] of the Treaty if the importer were required to declare, with regard to origin, something other than what he knows or may reasonably be expected to know’”.

I would say that meat suppliers should

“reasonably be expected to know”

where the meat that they are supplying comes from.

On the face of it, the requirement would not fall under the prohibition in article 28. Unfortunately for that line of argument, however—as Mr Oliver goes on to say—

“At least since January 1, 1993, when Article 14”

—the former article 7A—

“of the Treaty took effect, all obligations to make a declaration of origin constitute measures of equivalent effect. The qualifications in Donckerwolcke, which related to the now moribund Article 134…no longer apply.”

It might be thought that that constituted “Game, set and match”, or “I am done middle stump”—depending on whether a tennis or a cricketing analogy is preferred—but even then it is not as simple as that, because the treaty also contains article 30. Mr Oliver’s book is devoted almost entirely to article 28 and article 30. The main exception, as he describes it—article 30—includes the subject of mandatory requirements. Article 30 states:

“The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of”—

and a whole laundry list follows—

“public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property.”

We could drive a pyramid through that group of exceptions. That makes plenty of work for lawyers, of course, but it also shows that the issue is not quite as clear as some might try to make us believe.

Mr Oliver goes on to say:

“The wording of this provision shows that it applies both to quantitative restrictions and to measures of equivalent effect. Furthermore, it covers that latter whether they are ‘distinctly’ or ‘indistinctly’ applicable.”

He continues:

“it is also clear from the wording of Article 30 that, subject to certain limits, it merely entitles the Member States to exercise certain powers: it does not oblige them to do so.”

We must bear in mind that I am not trying to impose any restrictions on imports. I am merely trying to ensure that the consumer has clear information. Therefore, my proposals should receive the lightest possible interpretation in respect of these rules.

Mr Oliver goes on to point out that as the European Court of Justice

“held in Bauhuis v Netherlands, Article 30 ‘constitutes a derogation from the basic rule that all obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States shall be eliminated’”.

In other words, such derogations are possible. Mr Oliver continues:

“To be justified under Article 30, national provisions”—

which is what mine would be—

“must fall within one of the grounds of justification covered by the first sentence of Article 30”.

I think mine do that. Public policy says there should be better information for consumers so they can make informed choices, and public policy is one of the justifications under article 30.

As Mr Oliver points out, to be justified under article 30 national provisions must also

“not constitute arbitrary discrimination nor a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and must be justified.”

I am not trying to put any disguised restrictions on trade between member states. I simply want information for consumers, and what I am trying to do is certainly not arbitrary.

To continue:

“the Court in ‘Cassis de Dijon’”—

one of the most famous cases in European jurisprudence—

“has recognised a series of ‘mandatory requirements’ in addition to the grounds of justification expressly set out in Article 30.”

As is clearly set out in the book,

“the better view is that the ‘mandatory requirements’ fall under that provision”—

article 30—

“despite the Court’s traditional view that they were subsumed within Article 28.

The ‘mandatory requirements’ recognised so far are: the prevention of tax evasion, consumer protection, the prevention of unfair competition, the protection of the environment, the improvement of working conditions, the maintenance of press diversity”

and so forth.

To continue:

“One questions left open by ‘Cassis de Dijon’ was the relationship between the ‘mandatory requirements’ laid down by that judgment and Article 30, which is not mentioned at all in the judgment. Two schools of thought evolved on this matter:

(a) According to the first view, the ‘mandatory requirements’ are to be weighed up within Article 28, not Article 30. Moreover, only ‘indistinctly applicable’ measures may qualify, so that ‘distinctly applicable’ measures may only be justified on the grounds expressly set out in Article 30. On this view, therefore, ‘indistinctly applicable measures’ are granted more favourable treatment in that the ‘mandatory requirements’ apply to them alone.

(b) According to the second view, the ‘mandatory requirements’ are regarded as being subsumed under Article 30, on the grounds that they constitute additions to the list of grounds of justification expressly set out in Article 30. On this view, the mandatory requirements are subject to precisely the same tests as the latter grounds.”

Mr Oliver continues:

“In support of the first theory, it should be said that the Court has repeatedly held that Article 30 must be interpreted narrowly since it constitutes an exception to a fundamental principle of Community law.”

He adds:

“Yet it is submitted that that is outweighed by the following considerations:

(a) The second view avoids the undue harshness resulting from the first theory with respect to ‘distinctly applicable’ measures necessary on such grounds as consumer protection. According to the first theory, even though they are necessary, such measures are quite simply prohibited. According to the second theory, they are considered to fall under Article 28, but may be justified under Article 30. Since the Court has now accepted that consumer protection may justify restrictions otherwise prohibited by Article 28, does it make sense to approach it differently from, say, plant health merely because in 1957 (when the Treaty of Rome was first drafted) consumer protection did not yet arouse much passion?”

Mr Oliver continued:

“It always seemed clear that the ‘mandatory requirements’ have the same properties as the grounds of justification in Article 30. As van Gerven”—

the then advocate-general—

“remarked in Aragonesa de Publicidad v Departamento de Sanidad ‘…the conditions governing the applicability of the Cassis de Dijon doctrine and of Article [30] are the same”.

He continued:

“For these reasons, the second approach has been firmly and consistently advocated in this book since its very first edition, which appeared in 1982. This is despite the fact that…the Court had already chosen to follow the other approach, which was also backed by most commentators for many years.”

Mr Oliver’s point in this text, which is one of the leading reference books on the free movement of goods, is that the second approach is gaining favour. He continued:

“What is more, the Court has on occasion had recourse to some far-fetched—not to say exotic—devices so as to maintain the façade that the ‘mandatory requirements’ apply only to ‘indistinctly applicable measures’. Thus the Court has been driven to holding the following measures to be ‘indistinctly applicable’ so as to be able to consider the ‘mandatory requirements’ at all: a German statutory provision to the effect that only wines from certain specific regions of Germany could be marketed in bottles of a particular shape; legislation prohibiting the importation and marketing of meat products containing non-meat ingredients; and a measure prohibiting the use of the letter R in a circle (which indicates that a name constitutes a registered trade mark) unless such registration had occurred in the Member States in question.

Perhaps the most striking example occurred in Commission v Belgium (waste disposal), which concerned a blatantly discriminatory ban on imports of waste into Wallonia from other Member States.”

Mr Oliver goes on to talk about a “most welcome” move made by advocate-general Jacobs, whom I sat next to at lunch once in Luxembourg and I found to be a thoroughly excellent chap. Mr Oliver describes how Mr Jacobs

“has criticised the Court’s traditional approach on at least two occasions. In Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp v Minister van Milieubeheer”—

I think that that is Dutch, rather than German—

“referring to the last edition of this book, he acknowledged that the Court had been ‘obliged to adopt rather tortuous reasoning’ in the cases just mentioned and most particularly in the Walloon Waste case. In PreussenElektra v Schleswag, the same Advocate General went further, saying that ‘the reasoning in Walloon Waste is flawed and that ‘it is desirable that even directly discriminatory measures can sometimes be justified on grounds of environmental protection’, the latter being a ‘mandatory requirement’. He then added: ‘In view of the fundamental importance for the analysis of Article 30 of the Treaty of the question whether directly discriminatory measures can be justified by imperative requirements, the Court should, in my view, clarify its position in order to provide the necessary legal certainty’.

Mr Oliver goes on to say:

“Without expressly renouncing its earlier position, the Court has grudgingly moved in this direction…first…in Konsumentenombudsmannen v De Agostini”.

That case basically considered whether an outright ban on advertising certain products on television, which was held to have a greater effect in some member states than in others, could be justified.

He continued:

“Likewise, in Decker v Caisse de maladie des employés privés, the Court considered a ‘distinctly applicable’ Luxembourg rule requiring the prior authorisation of the purchase of glasses from another Member State…in PreussenElektra, blatantly discriminatory legislation on wind energy was held to be justified for the protection of the environment (a mandatory requirement).

Mr Oliver continued:

“Although these developments must surely be applauded, it is a pity that the Court has not yet shown the courage to disown its earlier approach expressly, as this would undoubtedly be in the interests of legal certainty.”

His fundamental point is as follows:

“In short, the view consistently espoused in all the previous editions of this book has been gaining ground in recent years.”

Why trouble the House with all this jurisprudence, especially as a non-lawyer? The reason is extremely simple: I want to make it clear there is an argument to be had. Indeed, having listened to what the Prime Minister has said on the subject of food labelling, I venture to suggest that he agrees with me. He said at the Oxford farming conference:

“Food can be imported to Britain, processed here, and subsequently labelled in a way that suggests it’s genuinely British. That is completely wrong. I cannot overstate the importance of enabling informed consumer choice. Effective marketing can only be achieved if labelling is accurate and clear.”

He went on:

“I know that this may raise issues with the European Union. But the role of a Government that cares about British farming is not to sit on its hands and say ‘there’s nothing we can do’, but instead to test these rules and if necessary challenge and change them.”

That is exactly what my Bill is designed to do and would accomplish, and I hope that the House will read it a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and his Bill. It would be very disappointing if the Government used their power to block it, especially as some current members of the Government previously supported it. The fact is that whatever the state of European law at the moment—I understand that European regulations require labelling to refer to where the food was last processed—there is absolutely no reason why the Bill should not be allowed to pass to Committee stage or, in my view, become an Act, as we could then test the jurisprudence.

In a brilliant speech that went through the entire jurisprudence, my hon. Friend set the scene for an interesting legal case. Let us at least test the water, because it is absolutely clear what the British public want. Indeed, I am not sure whether opinion polls have been mentioned yet, but one commissioned by YouGov in 2007 found that 72% of the British public want to buy British meat. I begin to part company from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because the best sausage is Lincolnshire sausage, as he well knows; he skated over that obvious point. Leaving that aside, the public want to know where their food comes from. Some 72% of them want to buy British meat, yet research done by the industry shows that 61% of pork eaten in the UK is imported. The most important point is that 70% of meat that is imported would be illegal if reared in this country, because our welfare standards are much higher.

It is not just a question of taste. The British people, who are patriotic, would prefer to support local suppliers, but we are conscious, too, as an animal-loving country of the need to support our high welfare standards, and the fact is that 70% of imported meat would be illegal if produced here. Why cannot the House of Commons state clearly and firmly that we should do what the British people want? The Minister will doubtless produce complex arguments to explain why that would be illegal under EU law, but the Spanish, for instance, have already intervened, issuing a decree in 2003 on the compulsory labelling of canned asparagus, and that was not overturned by the EU.

If we had the courage of our convictions, and we allowed the Bill, or something similar, to become law, it is possible—indeed, probable—that it would not be overturned by the Commission because, and this point has been made again and again, nothing that we have proposed would promote the restraint of trade. Nothing that the Bill does would stop anyone buying wonderful products from France, Germany or Italy or from our friends all over the European Union. In many respects, British people have been given a fantastic array of meats and products from all over the EU, and they are happy to buy them. However, when it comes to some of their favourite products such as bacon, beef and lamb, the majority of them want to buy British, so they should be given the opportunity to do so. There should be a clear label—this has nothing to do with the restraint of trade—telling shoppers in supermarkets that the meat was processed in a certain place, but was reared in Britain. That should be clearly set out—no ifs, no buts.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that food from animals born, reared and slaughtered in this country should be so labelled so that the British public know where it has come from. However, does he not agree that much of the food on which some of those animals are reared is imported, so should that not be on the label, too?

[Mr Leigh]

We can discuss that. What the public want to know—and let us not get too technical about this—is whether an animal was reared in the UK. Was it slaughtered in the UK? Was the meat processed in the UK? Those are the essential questions, and all that we ask of the Minister is that he keep an open mind and allow the Bill to proceed so that we can test European jurisprudence.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give my hon. Friend the same assurance as I have given the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and any new trust that would like to manage our heritage forests for us: we do not expect them to do it for nothing. Let us look at the model of British Waterways. Our canal network is to be moved into the hands of a mutual trust. Obviously, the Government will continue providing running costs to that trust because we understand that it cannot manage the network for nothing.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The public care about one thing. As a result of these plans, will public access be increased or reduced?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think I have said this, but for the avoidance of doubt, public access and other public benefits will be improved and enhanced as a result of the proposals that we set out in our consultation document.

Having exposed the fact that the previous Government indeed looked at disposal of the public forest estate, I would like the Opposition to hear—[Interruption.] I would like them all to listen. That would be a start. I would like them to hear clearly why it is important to give the opportunity for the heritage forests to pass into the hands of charitable trusts. What we have seen from the evidence of documents from the previous Government is that the forests run the risk of successive Governments continually coming back to the question of how they should be owned and managed. Putting them safely in the hands of charitable trusts, as we propose to do, will mean that they will continue to be managed for the benefit of the nation. Their enhanced status in the hands of charitable trusts will put them beyond the reach of Whitehall politics once and for all.

Intensive Dairy Farming

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies]

Several issues are probably involved, so I want to make my second point, which is that we might want to resist the development on welfare grounds. We can include housing for 365 days a year as a welfare issue. Even with a seven-cow herd, the animals were indoors for six months of the year. Being indoors is not particularly unusual. I think that the application for a 1,000-cow unit in my constituency proposes that the animals should be indoors for almost two thirds of the year. I suspect that the application for the 7,000-cow unit proposed having the animals indoors, apart from the followers, for 12 months of the year. What we have to keep at the core of our thinking is high welfare standards, and we must be guided by science or we shall lose the argument in the end.

[Mr Edward Leigh in the Chair]

I do not accept that it is necessarily more difficult to meet welfare standards with a large herd than with a small herd. I know that some people will disagree, but I just do not think that the large size of a herd is a proven reason for that. In fact, we can argue a little bit the other way, because for a large herd, there will almost certainly be professionally trained staff, and a large unit will be able to afford to keep them professionally trained. It will be able to do the training that smaller units cannot. A large dairy unit will almost certainly have an ongoing relationship with a veterinary surgeon, who will call in regularly. The smaller units do not have that. Most farmers with herds the size of mine considered themselves to be veterinary surgeons. We were not willing to pay what I thought were excessive bills at the time—we did it ourselves. I think that we shall find that the welfare standards in large units will be very impressive, and if they are not, they will not get permission.

There are many other, environmental reasons why one might want to refuse an application for a large unit, and I think that planning authorities should be willing to turn down applications, unless they meet their exacting standards. The application in my constituency is within view of Powis castle. The local planning authority will have to consider that issue. The Environment Agency will have to examine all the implications for the environmental impact. All such issues will have to be considered by a planning authority before approval is secured.

I want to deal now with the public resistance element. During my eight years in the National Assembly for Wales, I was a huge enthusiast for organic farming and farmers’ markets. We should continue with that, but we have to persuade people to come and buy from these units. The reality is that most customers—consumers—will buy where the price is cheapest. The supermarkets will drive down the price, and unless British farmers produce the product, they will import it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) made a very good point about exporting a problem. That is exactly what might happen in the dairy industry unless we deal with the matter. In relation to public resistance, we need a balanced and open mind and a view based on scientific knowledge.

I want to appeal not only to my hon. Friend the Minister but to everyone who participates in the debate—because it will be an ongoing debate; the issue will not be dealt with in the short term—not to take an instinctive view. Mine might be one of antipathy. We must examine the science, because in the end that is what will rule the decision. If we in this House are to have an impact on the issue, we have to present the facts and have an influence, we hope, on the purchasers, which are mostly supermarkets. Only the Government can do that now, because supermarkets have reached such a state of dominance in the market. By taking a balanced approach, we may well have some influence and, while not necessarily returning to the image of my childhood, staying rather closer to it.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to allow time for the winding-up speeches, so I will call Neil Parish now, but he must finish his speech, please, within five minutes.