Euro election issues: action on Poverty
Over the past few days I have received literally hundreds of emails with questions about the European elections.
I hope to answer them all, provided they reach me with a working return address (I've had one or two which did not) but in the meantime wil be posting some of the Conservative policy positions on which I am standing here.
The first one concerns action on Poverty.
· Committing to combating poverty is not just the right thing to do it is also the smart thing as aid helps to tackle the root causes of the world’s worst problems.
I hope to answer them all, provided they reach me with a working return address (I've had one or two which did not) but in the meantime wil be posting some of the Conservative policy positions on which I am standing here.
The first one concerns action on Poverty.
· Committing to combating poverty is not just the right thing to do it is also the smart thing as aid helps to tackle the root causes of the world’s worst problems.
· By spending 0.7 per cent of GNP on aid we are immunising millions against diseases, helping 10 million starving children and enabling 11 million children to attend school.
· The UK Government has driven value for money and improved transparency and oversight of aid spending to ensure that it is used efficiently and reaches those the world’s poorest.
· The UK became the first G8 country to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on international aid. (DfID, Operational Plan 2011 – 2015, June 2013,link; DFID Website, link.)
· Ensuring value for money.We have cut administration costs, down from £1.4m in 2010/11 to £1.1m in 2011/12 and set up an international aid watchdog to monitor spending and ensure it is spent effectively.
· Driving transparency.All spending over £500 is published online and the UK Aid Transparency Guarantee ensures that everyone can see how the aid budget is spent on each project in each country. (DfID Press Release, 3 June 2010, link)
· Focusing on women and girls.We are saving the lives of 50,000 women during pregnancy, supporting 700,000 girls through secondary education and extending financial services for over 18 million women. (DfID,Strategic Vision: One year on, June 2012, link)
· Inoculating children.21 million children have been immunised since we came to office and by 2015 we aim to have enabled the immunisation of more than 55 million children against preventable diseases. (DfID,Annual Report 2012, 19 June 2013, link)
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSIUf2hD6Io
In the midst of the ongoing controversy about the labelling of halal meat, only the Guardian seems to have noticed that "Europe" is considering whether meat should be labelled with information about how the animal was slaughtered.
Labelling has become a high profile issue after it had been revealed that Pizza Express, KFC and Subway were selling halal meat without telling their customers. But the idea that meat should be labelled in this manner has been rejected by supermarkets, while the prime minister has told the industry to sort itself out, stating that he will order a review unless the industry delivers greater transparency.
What no one seems to have realised, however, is that food labelling is an exclusive EU competence, controlled by Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. And, as per Recital 50, the European Commission has for some time been planning a study "on the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals". This is in "the context of a future Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals".
As of May last year, the Commission acknowledged that that there was an "upcoming study", investigating the possibility of "harmonised labelling of the stunning of animals". So far, though, there has been no report published (see pages 30-31).
Until the Commission has reported, and decided whether to legislate, making regulation on this form of labelling an "occupied field", the UK government is not in a position to take any formal action without explicit permission from the Commission.
Presumably, Mr Cameron is hoping that, by the time he is forced to order his own review - if that becomes necessary - the Commission will have reported. By then, I should imagine, he will be banking on the controversy having died down, getting him off the hook.
The irony is that, the more this subject is explored, the more anomalies that are going to show up, making the situation even worse. For instance, while halal is in the frame, animals for kosher meat are also killed without stunning, and the trade here could show up some problems.
Food labelling requirements are largely set at an EU level but member governments are not entirely without influence on what gest set because
1) one of the EU institutions which is part of the legislative process is the Council of Ministers which consists of member governments, and
2) member governments have to pass the actual legislation which imnplements them.
Indeed, the cause of many of the most irritating fussy and over-prescriptive laws we have experienced has been British civil servants or parliamentary draftsmen "gold plating" EU legislation when they prepared the statutory instrument or law which implemented the EU rules. Those EU rules thus became more burdensome in Britain than elsewhere in the EU.
For that reason I absolutely do want the British government to consult on matters like this even when they are EU competences, in the hope that the feedback from that consultation will alert British officials to the problems they will create if they "gold plate" EU legislation.
It would be much better if the industry put its' own house in order and I am sure David Cameron's remarks were intended to encourage them to do so.
But if the UK government did order a review, and that review came up with clear, practical and well-argued recommendations, the fact that this is an EU competence at the moment and EU agreement might be required would not necessarily be an insuperable barrier to implementing them.