Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab):...The Bill grants UK
Ministers powers on mutual recognition without any input from the
devolved Administrations. So if England, for example, imports
chlorine-washed chicken, consumers in Aberdeen and Aberystwyth
could find it on their supermarket shelves without any say by their
elected Governments. Similarly, the Bill’s lack of a public health
exclusion from market access principles makes it difficult for all
parts of the UK to implement policies to...Request free trial
(Lab):...The Bill grants UK Ministers powers on mutual
recognition without any input from the devolved Administrations. So
if England, for example, imports chlorine-washed chicken, consumers
in Aberdeen and Aberystwyth could find it on their supermarket
shelves without any say by their elected Governments. Similarly,
the Bill’s lack of a public health exclusion from market access
principles makes it difficult for all parts of the UK to implement
policies to reduce harms from alcohol and tobacco for example, or to tackle
environmental harms...
(Lab) [V]:...One concern which has not
received much attention in this debate, except, I think, from the
noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is the threat posed to
public health. Public health is a devolved responsibility, and the
individual nations of the UK have different populations and
different priorities. Scotland, for example, pioneered minimum unit
pricing for alcohol and England led the way on prohibiting
tobacco displays in shops.
However, the narrow drafting of this Bill substantially undermines
the ability of all parts of the UK to innovate and improve public
health policy. This is because of the very limited exceptions for
public health. Furthermore, the current exclusions, including the
list of legitimate aims that override non-discrimination, can be
removed or weakened by statutory regulation. In my view, the Bill
must be amended to allow the Governments of the four UK nations to
protect the health of their populations. Protecting human health
must be included as a legitimate aim for overriding all market
access rules. I shall be supporting amendments to this effect in
Committee...
(Lab) [V]:...Regarding devolution, the same ideological
zeal to recentre control in No. 10 crudely challenges all the
progress and success so far in constructively building towards the
new constitutional settlement achievements for Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. We must beware, for the future peaceful stability
of the UK itself. The lowest common denominator becomes the
reality. On a practical level, what of the lead given by England in
the provision to help curb deaths from cigarettes and other
tobacco? What of the legislation in Scotland on
alcohol pricing? What of the spring water and bottled water
standards established in Wales? What prospects now of their being
part of a firm base from which to develop civilised policy for the
future? We can now see starkly what “take back control” really
meant: control for an ideologically ruthless No. 10. It is high
time for us to make a firm stand...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
