Horsemeat
Debate between Grahame Morris and David Heath(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Heath
I do not resile from the fact that phenylbutazone should not be present in horsemeat that is presented for human consumption; let us be absolutely clear. However, my right hon. Friend is right to say that the actions that have now been put in place—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this moment at Europol and Eurojust in The Hague, securing police and justice co-ordination on this matter—are unprecedented. It is extremely welcome that European authorities are now getting to grips with the problem.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is interesting that the Minister’s attitude has changed since the statement on Monday, when he was at pains to say that there was no risk to public health and that this was an issue of mislabelling and fraud. Clearly, when bute enters the food chain, it is a public health issue, and given that a very small percentage—1%—of carcases were tested, should not the Minister make an apology to the House?
Mr Heath
What I said, and have repeatedly said, is that there is no evidence of material that is harmful to human health having been put on sale in this country. That is still the case, and I am very glad that that is the case. We are testing for bute. That is the prime responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. It worries me sometimes that people seem to think that food safety is a secondary issue. It is not. It is the prime responsibility.
Business of the House
Debate between Grahame Morris and David Heath(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Heath
I certainly agree that the change of licensing policy that the last Government introduced has not produced the results that they claimed it would, whereby we would all sit sipping our chianti in perfect peace and serenity in our town centres until late in the evening. That does not seem to accord with the experience of most people in most parts of the country. It might therefore be opportune for the matter to be debated again. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the next couple of weeks, but he could make an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on licensing laws, or he could seek a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on the matter.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I draw the Deputy Leader of the House’s attention to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) in Hansard on Stockholm syndrome? Can we have a debate on Stockholm syndrome given that it may affect the judgment of leading Liberal Democrat members of the condemned coalition? The evidence base includes their support for regressive VAT increases, thereby displaying irrational emotional feelings and loss of concentration. Those symptoms are associated with this condition, and I think it would be useful and instructive if we could have a debate.
Mr Heath
I was rather hoping that there would be a punch line. There might be a case for a debate on Stockholm syndrome as it applied to those poor benighted souls who supported the Labour Government through 13 years of mismanagement, particularly the candidates for the leadership of the Labour party, who appear not to have agreed with anything they did while in government.