Food: Adulteration

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Monday 17th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I agree with much of the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s question. In his interim report, Professor Elliott recognises that the United Kingdom has access to some of the safest food in the world, but we should not be complacent. We are working across government, and with the industry and local authorities, to improve our intelligence gathering and sharing, with the aim of improving protection for the consumer. Consumer protection is the key priority for the FSA and local authorities, and enforcement officers are working across areas, targeting those most likely to be at risk. During 2012-13, 86,000 food safety composition and authenticity tests were carried out. The FSA has increased the additional funding it provides to local authorities to support testing to £2.2 million this year.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

Will the Minister tell us what the definition of “adulteration” is in this instance, and at what level something would be described as just a trace element or ignored in terms of adulteration?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, casting my mind back to the horsemeat saga, I think we were looking at a threshold of 1%. May I take this opportunity to address another of the range of issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley? She referred to the West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service. In a six-month period, that trading standards service reported on 873 samples, 331 of which received an adverse report from the public analysts, as the noble Baroness said. However, many of the issues found did not relate to food adulteration. For example, a large proportion were for labelling failures, such as foreign language-only labelling, while others were for exaggerated health claims. Nevertheless, it is true that a material proportion were for fraudulent purposes, such as meat substitution, and the West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service is taking action.

Japan: Dolphins

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Australians have for many years been concerned by the fact that the Japanese use a loophole to argue that they do this hunting for scientific research? Can anything be done about that?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we regularly call for Japan to cease its so-called “scientific” whaling programme, as we consider there to be no valid argument for lethal scientific research on whales. As such, we therefore agree with Australian efforts to bring an end to these activities through the ICJ, and we look forward to the judgment in that case, which we expect this year.

Japanese Knotweed

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. We have to balance, on the one hand, a determination to control this odious invasive species and, on the other, an imperative not to unnecessarily penalise people who are simply not in a position to do anything about it. However, I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I did not take in the name of the treatment—it was “apha” something—but is there any risk of it becoming like the Hawaiian cane toad of Australia and proving to be a menace in itself?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. It is called Aphalara itadori and my noble friend is entirely right. On top of research work that has already been done testing it against more than 90 plant species, we are going through a phased release over five years to make absolutely sure that it focuses entirely and exclusively on Japanese knotweed. That is a really important point.

Air Quality

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we take this subject extremely seriously. It is fair to say that air quality in the UK has improved significantly over recent decades, but we continue to face severe challenges, particularly from nitrogen dioxide in densely populated towns and cities. As a Government, we are committed to working towards a much better situation and, indeed, towards full compliance with EU air quality standards. There is close working between departments and local authorities to consider air quality in all policy areas. The noble Lord mentioned health, and he is quite right, but transport, energy and planning are also important.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Can the Minister tell me about the health and welfare boards, and is it correct that in London only the City of London Corporation is doing anything at all in that respect? Can he inform me, as I live in central London, whether it is currently Knightsbridge or Marylebone that has the worst air in the whole of the UK?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there were quite a lot of questions in there. On the public health outcomes framework, in the financial year 2013-14 local authorities will take on new responsibilities for public health. They will be expected to deliver against 68 measurable outcomes set out in the PHOF. One of these indicators is air quality, but measures implemented as part of a package of transport interventions and street improvements will help to deliver against more than half those indicators.

On London, I cannot agree with my noble friend. The mayor has implemented an ambitious package of measures across the whole of London, including tighter lower emission zone standards, building Europe’s largest hybrid bus fleet and introducing London’s first ever taxi age limits. He has also introduced a number of other measures.

Food: Waste

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Absolutely, my Lords. The right reverend Prelate is 100% right.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the supermarkets, the “best before” label apparently means that they are not allowed to sell it after that date. Yet there is quite a period when that food remains good, and this is a great source of waste. Many large establishments give all of that food away to homeless charities and people who come to collect. Are the Government or any of the private enterprises looking into spreading that practice so that people are not wasting food which is still good for some days?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend raises an important point. “Use by” and “best before” dates help consumers to know what is safe to eat. They are required by law. The “sell by” and “display until” dates, however, are not intended for customers and can confuse them. We have encouraged retailers to remove these from goods or to render them invisible to the human eye. Encouragingly, the WRAP retailer survey 2011 found that new labelling being rolled out by retailers including Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s makes it clear that consumers do not have to freeze goods on the day of purchase, but can do so any time up to the “use by” date. A number of supermarkets have also introduced new, larger, single-date label stamps on to products to help consumers make the best use of the food.

Work Capability Assessment: Cancer Treatments

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, what is the position with people undergoing chemotherapy? In many cases, if they are on a monthly cycle, the first week will be absolutely intolerable; then they will be fine for two weeks; then it will be absolutely ordinary living in the next week; and then they will start the cycle again. Is that treated as a total continuing period for a work capability assessment, or will they be expected to do something in the one week when they are better off?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a valid point. Of course she is right: they will be treated as being under treatment.

Visas

Debate between Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I am not briefed on that specific point, so I will write to her, if I may.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, ask her first question. She was a very honourable High Commissioner for Australia. I asked, and had an answer from, the previous Government about people coming here to study—exactly those referred to by the noble Baroness. Will the Minister consider that there is a great deal of difference between visiting artists and young people who are not yet artists? I have cited in the past Joan Sutherland, who was nothing when she first came here. The time and training that she had here made a difference. The previous Government replied that they had introduced a degree of flexibility to enable young talent to come particularly from Australia, because Australian points are what we are basing this on. No one goes to Australia to become an artist.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am racking my brains to think of an artist, but I accept my noble friend’s general point. I mentioned earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, the concession under tier 5, which allows for non-visa nationals, including nationals from Australia specifically. That is one example. We will look at any suggestions that that my noble friend may offer.