| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Food Marketing
11. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): What measures his Department is taking to improve the marketing of food to the benefit of both producer and consumer. [62995]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Department pursues a number of measures to improve marketing both for producers and for consumers. On 29 November--the first day of the Smithfield show--we announced a joint initiative with the National Farmers Union to encourage collaborative marketing among producers.
Dr. Iddon: My family have always been involved in the food production industry so I know that the producers often take the largest risk in the food production chain yet take out one of the smallest commensurate profits. What is my hon. Friend doing to redress that balance?
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the collaborative marketing approach, which does not force producers into co-ops but enables them to produce on a small scale while still supplying the large suppliers on a large scale, is best. They can then produce both scale and quality. Of course, the big buyers want consistency of supply. Small producers cannot always provide that on their own, but they can do so in collaboration with other producers. We want to encourage the NFU and other producer groups to go down that route. My hon. Friend is right about who takes the biggest snatch in the food chain.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): Does the Minister agree that it is galling if producers co-operate in the interests of the highest food standards and marketing development, yet imports enter the country and readily circulate without
the benefit of the precautions and high standards of British producers? Is it not important that the Minister should examine the entire supply chain from plough to plate, to try to ensure that it operates with maximum openness and in the interests of British consumers as well as British farmers?
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to build on the assurances that we received recently from the British Retail Consortium regarding its members. That is a major step forward and will help to ensure that British producers who, for example, maintain much higher animal welfare standards than our European partners, do not suffer because of that. We must find a mechanism for our buyers to force or encourage our European competitors to operate to the same high standards that we operate in this country.
Beef Export Ban
12. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South): What steps he is taking to end the export ban on beef. [62996]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Commission decision providing for exports of deboned beef from the whole of the United Kingdom under the date-based export scheme--DBES--was adopted on 25 November. That was a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners.
We are now pressing ahead with arrangements to implement the scheme. We issued plans for the operation of the scheme on 14 December, seeking views from the industry. For hon. Members who are interested, I have placed a copy in the Library.
Mr. Chapman:
The decision to lift the ban was indeed important and welcome, but it does not of itself put money into beef producers' pockets. In addition to the DBES, there is a need to restore confidence in overseas markets generally, and for our exporters to re-establish themselves in those markets. That will take time. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to help British beef producers re-establish themselves, and when does he expect substantial beef exports to take place?
Mr. Brown:
My hon. Friend is right in his analysis of the situation. Officials in my Department and Ministers are working closely with representatives of the beef industry and in particular those who want to come into the date-based export scheme as suppliers or producers, to make sure that we get the scheme up and running as soon as possible. I anticipate that we will be able to start exporting deboned beef by the spring of next year. Markets will take time to grow, but it is a premium product for which we can find a place in international markets early on. The Government will stand behind producers and exporters to help them to regain market share.
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone):
How soon after the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone in the United Kingdom does the Minister expect it to be lifted in Europe, so that exports of such beef to Europe can begin?
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about two separate schemes. The ban in the United Kingdom
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
Further to the Minister's reply, there is a direct link. The new conditions require that meat companies dedicate whole abattoirs entirely to the export business. The most lucrative business before the ban was that of beef on the bone for whole roasts to Europe's highest-quality restaurants and meat distributors. I do not know of a single meat business that is prepared to commit itself to dedicate an entire abattoir until the beef-on-the-bone ban is lifted.
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. After discussions with the industry, we are certain that we shall be able to get producers and abattoir operators into the scheme so, under the terms of the agreement, a volume of deboned beef will be available for export. The hon. Gentleman's question goes wider than the answer that I have just given and criticises the initial terms of the Florence agreement. All that I can say on that is that it was made by his Government.
Sentencing
30. Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): How many unduly lenient sentences he has sought leave to refer to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997; and what has been the outcome of such referrals. [63015]
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 137 offenders; 101 applications have been heard; leave was granted in 97 applications; and the sentence was increased in 84, which is 83.2 per cent. of references which have been heard.
Mr. Collins: I am delighted to hear that the new Government are continuing to use that power granted by the previous Government. Does the Attorney-General now regret the fact that the Labour party in opposition opposed the introduction of that power?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I am continuing on the same basis that my predecessors submitted cases to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the matter was debated. There was a great deal of concern, not confined to one party alone but apparent also among many of the judiciary, about the proposal. The basis of the fears was that individuals would be placed in double jeopardy. Fortunately, the courts have interpreted the
legislation to take account of double jeopardy, and that is not in the legislation. In the circumstances, I am more than content that the machinery is working properly.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he refers cases for reconsideration, in particular those so serious or appalling that they generate widespread public concern. I am confident that the Court of Appeal will look closely at such cases. The people of Croydon are particularly grateful for cases of local concern which have been referred.
The Attorney-General: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about a local case which caused great anxiety. A petition was submitted and there was a great deal of press interest. I know the concerns of many in many localities when sentences are out of line with guidelines and the practice of the courts. In those instances, it is important to maintain public confidence and to refer cases, which are few against the total number--about 0.5 per cent.--to the Court of Appeal to ensure that public confidence is maintained.
32. Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): What new proposals he has to discourage apparently lenient sentences. [63018]
The Attorney-General: The Government are actively considering how best to implement our manifesto commitment to extend my powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review when it appears to me that the sentence is unduly lenient. The Government hope to be able to announce proposals early next year.
Mr. Flynn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall a recent case where a driver, who demolished a wall while being three times over the breathalyser limit, escaped without fine or ban; another case in which a defendant, who was accused of a £1 million mortgage fraud, was excused a retrial on the ground that he was suffering stress; and a third case in which a driver, who admitted to being responsible for an accident in which a young woman was injured and will probably lose her eyesight, suffered no prosecution, ban or penalty points and was advised to take extra driving lessons? Is it not extraordinary that, in those three cases, the people involved were all High Court judges? Is there one rule for judges and another for the rest of us?
The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is the same rule, and the rule of law prevails for each and every one, from the highest to the lowest. Any decision that I have to take is no less fair for the highest than for someone who may, apparently, be less important in society. Everyone is treated in exactly the same way.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Does the Attorney-General agree that there might be a case for better instruction of judges in sentencing principles and guidelines?
The Attorney-General: As a rather long-established recorder until fairly recently, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that potential judges, assistant recorders, recorders and judges attend courses in order to ensure
cross-fertilisation of knowledge, experience and practice. Over the years, the Court of Appeal has issued a substantial number of guidelines which have assisted judges in the difficult task of sentencing.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): In pursuing the same line as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), may I ask the Attorney-General to speculate on whether judges are given proper instruction in the declaration of their interests?
The Attorney-General: I cannot comment on a matter that I understand is sub judice at the moment. As regards the decision made today, it would not be right for me to do so.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): When a prosecution has been stayed or a trial discontinued because the defendant was apparently suffering from an incurable disease such as Alzheimer's, but he then makes a miraculous recovery, is there not a good case for the prosecution to revisit that case and bring it back to trial?
The Attorney-General: That can always be considered if there is a change in the legislative position. However, it is not the position now and I have to administer the law as it stands.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |