Statutory Instrument 1387
An excerpt from a report concerning the Standing Committee debate and vote
to translate the EU Food Supplements Directive into English law, with
associated background material. The full report is available from the
author.
Prepared by Paul Anthony Taylor
[email protected]
The EU Food Supplements Directive was passed into UK law recently, but the
circumstances surrounding the Government's approval of it are somewhat
controversial. Rather than put the legislation to a democratic vote in the
House of Commons, the Government decided instead that a vote held
following a one and a half hour committee meeting would be sufficient
reason to ban 300 nutrients and 5000 products from the shelves of UK
health food stores by 1st August 2005.
The original members of the committee were announced towards the end of
June. Two days before the vote was due to take place it emerged that
several Labour MPs on the committee, including Kate Hoey MP, were going to
vote against the legislation. This would have prevented the legislation
from being voted through. On the day before the vote the Labour Party
removed five Labour MPs from the committee and replaced them with Labour
MPs who, although they had not had an opportunity to read about the issue
in great depth, could be guaranteed to vote it through. It is particularly
noteworthy that all but one of the MPs who were removed from the committee
had previously signed Early Day Motions calling upon the Government to
take urgent action to address the serious problems brought about by the
Food Supplements Directive.
The five Labour MPs who were removed were: Tony Banks, Tony Colman, Kate
Hoey, Andrew Love and Joan Ryan. The five Labour MPs who replaced them
were Charlotte Atkins, Ross Cranston, Geraint Davies, John Mann and
Claire Ward.
The debate and vote were held on 3rd July in Committee Room 12 at the
House of Commons. Right at the outset of the meeting, Chris Grayling MP
(Cons) raised a point of order in relation to the removing of Labour MPs
from the committee against their wishes. The Chairman (Win Griffiths MP,
Lab) replied that there was nothing that he could do about the situation.
David Wilshire (Cons) then expressed his concern that the Government were
"yet again showing another example of their jackboot approach and
determination to stamp on this place and parliamentary democracy, if any
honourable Members so much as say that they have doubts about the
Government's dictatorial attitude".
Chris Grayling then issued a direct challenge to the Junior Health
Minister, Miss Melanie Johnson MP (Lab), asking her could she name one
item on the list of almost 300 nutrients that will be banned that is
unsafe.
Miss Johnson was silent at first, and then replied that she saw no point
in selecting individual points to reply to and that she would not respond
to a challenge thrown down to oblige her to argue a position.
"Why" asked Chris Grayling "are we allowing laws imposed by the European
Commission to take from people in this country the choice that they have
freely exercised for years?"
Some of the most dramatic moments of the debate came when Kate Hoey (Lab)
stood up to speak. Because she was no longer on the committee she was not
allowed to vote, but she was clearly very angry and determined to say her
piece. In her speech, she confirmed that she was a member of the Committee
until she had said, very honestly, that she would vote against the
regulations. "That is probably a lesson that one should not be honest in
this place," she said.
Kate Hoey also stated her belief that "the regulations send out the
message that, once again, the elite in Brussels, backed up, I am afraid,
by the connivance of the Government, are running our country. The message
will go out to millions of ordinary people that the Government care more
about the pharmaceutical industry than they do about ordinary people's
opportunities and rights to continue to take products that they have
always taken. This is not a public health issue. If it were, we would not
be dealing with it in this way and we would already have banned the
products. This is a victory for the elite in Brussels and for bureaucracy
in Brussels. The idea that we are making a decision on the regulations in
an hour and a half in a small Committee Room is scandalous. If that is the
way in which the European Union is going, no wonder there is a huge demand
in this country for a referendum on any change to the constitution." She
finished her speech by saying that "the situation is scandalous, and I
want my voice to be very clear as I say that this is not being done in my
name."
Jeremy Corbyn (Lab) suggested that the genesis of the directive is the
product of some ruthless lobbying tactics that are used in the European
Union. "Brussels is a place in which one needs to walk with care" he said
"because there are so many sharp suits around that will cut one. Such
people are there and are lobbying on behalf of all kinds of interest
groups." He went on to say that he unfortunately saw "the hand of the
pharmaceutical industry at work, because it is not keen on the diversity
of supply of vitamin supplements and all such products that are available
in health food shops in this country." Mr Corbyn also stated that "the
other issue must be the power of the medical industry-it is an industry-in
the prescription of drugs." He went on to say that "the pharmaceutical
industry prescribes the kinds of medicines that it does, but many people
in this country wish there to be a different, more homeopathic form of
medicine."
Graham Brady (Cons) pointed out that "there is a rich irony here", saying
that "the Government believe that they have the power and the right to
require our constituents to use a combined MMR vaccination and they will
be moving amendments to the Water Bill next week that would give them
powers to add fluoride to the public water supply." Stating that the
Government believe that "they can do things to our constituents against
their will" he added that "they do not believe that our constituents
should have freedom of choice."
The Junior Health Minster, Melanie Johnson MP (Lab) spoke for less than
twenty minutes, and it was clear to all present that she was doing her
level best to avoid answering questions on the more controversial aspects
of the legislation. It is noteworthy that the only positive thing that she
could find to say about the legislation was that "it will open up markets
for products manufactured by UK businesses in other member states." Proof
indeed that this legislation was designed to benefit business, not
consumers.
After the meeting a vote took place, and the regulations were approved, by
8 votes to 6. It is very clear that had the Government not rigged the
Committee and removed dissenting Labour MPs the Regulations would have
been blocked.
