---

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the generous way in which he has received the proposals. The agriculture industry, along with many other interest groups, will be represented on the council, but in the end it will be for the council to determine into which matters it wishes to inquire and what its views are. To that extent, I cannot fetter in any way the council's discretion; nor would I wish to do so. Public reassurance and confidence depends on the independence of the council and the adviser and the regard in which they are held by the public as a whole.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): The Minister has on several occasions today admitted honestly that the public perceive him, his Government colleagues and his

30 Jan 1997 : Column 526

scientific advisers to be basically untrustworthy and incredible on matters of food safety; I acknowledge that he recognises that fact. However, given that he is making this announcement in the form of an election promise and not for immediate action, why does he believe that that perception will now be transformed?

Mr. Hogg: We are all in the business of facing facts, and, after the experience of the past 12 months regarding BSE, it would be idle and foolish for me not to accept that the public do not have the degree of confidence that I would like them to have and which I believe would be justified, when Ministers and officials associated with Departments talk about food safety. They do not, and that is a fact; and we must address that issue.

We have tried to create a separation of powers, a separation of functions, which is reassuring in itself, and we are determined to ensure that the people appointed to the council generally and to the post of adviser are people of great distinction--not civil servants, not beholden to the Government of the day, not beholden to Departments, but distinguished people who carry the authority of their own knowledge and standing among their peers. I believe that that will have a profound effect, for the good, on public confidence.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Can my right hon. and learned friend think of anything that might have been done over the last 10 years, had the special adviser already been in post? Is it not a fact that the Government have always sought the very best scientific advice and that that will continue under the new arrangement, but that, if it helps to give the public and the consumer greater reassurance about the safety of British food--which is the best in the world--that is all to the good?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because a range of very important independent advisory committees already exists. The best known is the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, whose chairman, Professor Pattison, is a man of the greatest distinction. We have relied heavily on the advice of those advisory committees, and on SEAC in particular, regarding BSE. However, what we have in mind goes beyond the area covered by the specialist committees, will be more general in its scope and will be a great deal more public, and that is our intention.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I have listened carefully to the Minister. Who will have the final say as to who is appointed to the council? Will it be the fiefdom of Sir Kenneth Calman, a highly regarded individual, or will there be a ministerial input as to who will serve on the council? Who will pay for the council, and what is the estimated budget?

Mr. Hogg: As I said in my statement, the council will be appointed by my right hon. Friends. A number of my right hon. Friends are appointing Secretaries of State or Ministers for these purposes. Ultimately, the Ministers--my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for example, and myself--will make the appointment, but it is in our interests to appoint people of standing and authority who will command respect.

Few people in the House who know anything about it would criticise the membership of our various advisory sub-committees, such as the Advisory Committee on

30 Jan 1997 : Column 527

Microbiological Safety of Food, the Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and so on. I believe that everyone would accept that the membership of those specialist committees is a good one. SEAC is well known to the House, and Professor Pattison is a man of great distinction.

We intend to ensure that the membership of the council is as distinguished as we can make it, because it is in our interests that that should be the case.

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark): Does my right hon. and learned friend agree that, if he were to appoint someone with the independence, professionalism and appropriate expertise of successive chief medical officers of health, it would go a long way to reassure consumers and increase confidence? Has not that confidence been eroded in recent years by so-called food experts, who make outrageous statements, which are worked up by the media and are very difficult for him and his colleagues to disprove?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point in the latter part of his question. As to the former part, the status of the chief medical officer is a good analogy. It is not quite the same, but it is very similar to the concept that we have in mind. I believe that most hon. Members would accept that, when the chief medical officer speaks, he speaks with real independence and authority. We are seeking to create someone very similar in connection with food safety.

We are likely to appoint as food safety adviser a scientist or someone from that type of background, rather than a generalist such as a lawyer, an official or even, dare I say it, a former Member of the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Does the Minister accept that, in the view of Sir David Carter, the chief medical officer of Scotland, and Professor Pennington, some of the most useful and constructive elements on E. coli came from West Lothian council, represented by Crawford Morgan and Alec Campbell, because they had knowledge of the first major outbreak--the Red House Dairy outbreak? Will the Minister ask whoever is appointed, at a very early stage, to ask West Lothian council to present its detailed and constructive views on E. coli?

Mr. Hogg: That goes outwith the scope of the statement, but I am sure that the food safety adviser, the chairman of the council, will in due time have his attention drawn to all relevant matters, which might include the point made by the hon. Gentleman; in any event, it might be possible for the hon. Gentleman, if he wins his seat, to put those points to the chairman of the council.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): I welcome the appointment of the council. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), I too am anxious that the scaremongers who have caused huge damage to our food industry over recent years do not talk themselves on to the council.

30 Jan 1997 : Column 528

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say precisely how the people serving on the council will be recruited? Will it be by public advertisement and after due consultation?

Mr. Hogg: I draw a slight distinction for these purposes, if I might, between the chairman and the council members. It is likely that, in the case of the chairman of the council, the food safety adviser, we shall advertise publicly, but we may also employ headhunters. For council members, it is very likely that we shall advertise publicly; we may also go through the appropriate channels for suggestions.

We are very anxious that the council, with its chairman, should be seen to be a prestigious, independent body, so we shall seek candidates who command respect.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): Is this the Government's response to the call made earlier this month by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland for a food safety body that commands the support and confidence of consumers? Cannot the Minister grasp the fact that we do not need just another advisory council? What consumers and every part of the industry require, and what Parliament should demand, is an effective food safety agency with executive power to control the whole issue.

Mr. Hogg: A moment's reflection will make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is infinitely better than what he just suggested. I suspect that he is suggesting three things, although he only said two. He wants an agency with executive responsibility. He wants that agency to explain and justify the safety of food, explaining and justifying the actions that have been taken by the agency. It would be fair to say that he would like the agency to be accountable to Ministers.

The problem--or one of the problems--with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that the agency, on his model, would be responsible, not only for implementing policy, but for justifying and defending it. That does not seem to me to be a very sensible way to proceed, because the agency would have every incentive to justify that which it had done.

We are proposing a separation of functions: the Minister is responsible for the formulation, defence and explanation of policy, but others who are not responsible for the formulation of policy and have no inherent reason to defend it will tell the public their opinion, first as to the generality of the question and, secondly, as to any specific points relating to policy that the council and the adviser might choose.

---