| Cocoa and Chocolate
|
|
Mr. Paice: I agree that agricultural diversification is an important form of aid but, rather than worrying about other forms of aid or whether those countries are, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, dictating how we trade, we should ensure that we remove the barriers to trade that will still exist after the directive is approved, so that the world market for chocolate and cocoa products is expanded. Even is 5 per cent. of a product is vegetable oil, if total chocolate production is expanding, the demand for cocoa butter and other cocoa products will increase. There is no need for countries to dictate terms or for the extra aid that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Dr. Vis: I entirely agree. In 1980, the European Union used 542,000 tonnes of cocoa beans; 14 years later, that figure had more than doubled. Cocoa-exporting countries would not object if what the hon. Gentleman suggests were carried out not just in the European Union but across the world economy so that free trade were enhanced. I agree with the Government's position. If a proposal in that respect was blocked by the European Parliament, we should fight it. We should not lie down and accept one or two amendments that we, as a nation, do not like. We should go all the way to reject them; we might even have to go to court and put our argument in the context of free trade, the single market in the European Union and the world economy as a whole.
11.44 amMr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): I shall be brief because many of my arguments have already been advanced by members of the Committee. Given some of the debates, that we have had in this Committee during the past few months, we have reached an unnatural consensus in some respects. I should declare an interest, not because I am a chocoholic like the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), but because I am a new member of the Catering Committee and I suspect that I shall have to taste a variety of chocolate products that will be offered to hon. Members and others. I welcome the Minister's robust view of the document. I accept that it is not a matter of the United Kingdom versus the rest of Europe. When declaring his constituency interest, the hon. Member for City of York advanced the valid argument that we are talking about not only British-owned manufacturing companies, but multi-national companies. The issue is about market forces and consumer choice. There is a certain irony about consumer choice. British people now travel frequently to the continent with much greater ease. One of the first things that they do when they visit Belgium is buy Belgian chocolate and vice versa. We are discussing a variety of choice and a variety of taste. As the Minister said, as much as anything else we are talking about a taste and a choice throughout different countries that goes back at least 100 years. However a product is packaged and labelled, if the public likes it, have been used to consuming it and there is no risk to health, why should they not be allowed to make a particular choice? I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. It is important to ensure that we do not have restrictive labelling on products. It could put United Kingdom chocolate manufacturers at a disadvantage. We are in danger of reaching a situation when labelling will become such an important part of the packaging that the packaging will become larger to accommodate the names of the different aspects of the product to inform the consumer. We must bear in mind that the consumer has a lot of common sense. I hope that my next comment will not be regarded by the Committee as a red herring, but I want to refer to another popular product that may defy definition. A wide variety of ice cream products is available in this country and throughout Europe. Some of the most popular ice cream that comes from a machine could be accused of defying the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 on the grounds that it contains virtually no cream, but many other ingredients. However, that ice cream is exceptionally popular and most people would be aghast if it were re-labelled as something other than ice cream. For example, ``ice non-cream product'' would sound strange. We are talking about consumer choice and consumer sense. As long as there is no risk to health, the matter should be put on one side. We are at the beginning of the UK presidency of the European Union and I know that the Prime Minister is keen to support British products and British designers, regardless of whether they contribute to Labour party funds. I urge the Minister to stress on every possible occasion the need for a full range of chocolate products, including British dairy products, so that Ministers from other countries can indulge their tastes. During our presidency, we should be saying that we support the single market and want to have a wide range of consumer choice in which British chocolate products are not placed at a disadvantage.
11.49 amMr. Rooker: We have had an interesting morning. It was nearly an hour before Conservative Members started making silly party-political points. By and large, members of the Committee have operated as good chocolate soldiers on behalf of the industry. I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk about using the presidency, but that does not mean that we can rule the roost and order our partners around--far from it. The presidency comes only once every few years, so we must treat it carefully. However, we shall attempt to use all our good offices to seek change that will benefit everyone and solve the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York made all the points that I would have made about the matter not being a third world issue. As my hon. Friend said, consumption has doubled in the past decade and a half, which benefits farmer-producers. Non-cocoa vegetable fats also come from very poor countries, so that is not a valid argument. The Commission has looked at the matter and sees no disbenefit to the poorer countries in the long term. The argument that cocoa producers will be adversely affected by the directive comes from a campaign funded by multinational cocoa manufacturers based in Rotterdam. Most of the cocoa coming into the European Union is pressed there, and the multinational companies control most of the supply of cocoa butter. They have a vested interest and their argument about cocoa producers does not stand up. The Commission does not see that as a problem and nor do we. I do not intend making a long speech as most of the points have been covered. A couple of issues that have not been raised previously were mentioned and I hope that I have dealt with them sufficiently. I shall review the position at the end of the debate and if there are any matters that need further clarification, I shall write to hon. Members. We shall come back to the matter in the Scrutiny Committee when the Commission gives its full response, which we expect in a matter of days. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Roe, Mrs. Marion (Chairman) Best, Mr. Borrow, Mr. Clark, Mr. Paul Dobbin, Mr. Gill, Mr. Humble, Mrs. Quinn, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Keith Swinney, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Vis, Dr. The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(5):
Bayley, Mr. Hugh (City of York)
|
| |
| Prepared 14 January 1998 | |
