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.