| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whichever party is in power, a strong Ministry of Food and Agriculture is necessary? If it were replaced, as the Labour party suggests, by one Minister of State in the Department of the Environment and one in the Department of Health, our standing in Europe would be further diminished. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the general public, apart from the food fascists, need much reassurance, and that the appointment will reassure the public that much of what we do is the best in Europe, and will identify the necessary adjustments?
Mr. Hogg: Both parts of my hon. Friend's question are very sound. Let me focus on the first part, regarding the
30 Jan 1997 : Column 529
status of the Minister of Agriculture. From time to time, the Labour party has suggested downgrading the status of the Minister of Agriculture to that of a Minister of State. That would be a grave error, because the pressures in Europe for the reform of the common agricultural policy are great and will gather speed.
It is vital that the interests of British agriculture are properly represented at the Agriculture Council. All the Ministers at the Agriculture Council are of Cabinet level. If the Opposition argue for the status of the British Minister of Agriculture to be diminished, the interests of British agriculture will be gravely damaged
Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East):
Can the Minister tell the House why it has taken the Government so long to announce the setting up of such a puny and inadequate body in response to concerns that go beyond BSE, E. coli and baby milk, and encompass issues such as Alar in apple juice, salmonella in eggs, organophosphates in root vegetables, listeria in cheese--the list goes on? Does he not understand that a part-time food safety adviser is no substitute for an independent food standards agency to reassure the public, particularly people who are bringing up children and want to do the best for them, and to enforce the rights of consumers to enjoy the best standards of food hygiene and safety?
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Lady has not thought through the policy that she or those on her Front Bench are trying to put across. Their concept of an agency involves at least two elements: first, that the agency is responsible for implementing food safety policy, and secondly, that the agency is responsible for reassuring the public as to the success of the policy that it itself has introduced and implemented.
That system would not reassure the public. Such an agency would have every incentive, personal and political, to justify the action that it has previously taken. What we are doing is much more dramatic. We are separating the functions, so that the food safety council or the adviser can say publicly to the House or to the public at large that Ministers have got it wrong, if that is the council's considered view.
Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington):
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all Conservative Members wish him well with his latest development of policy? It is important that we reassure consumers of food safety and of the value of the product. Can he assure the House that, in arriving at today's announcement, he and his ministerial colleagues and officials carefully considered the example of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, to see whether any appropriate lessons could be learnt from that structure and approach? Many of my constituents would favour that model.
Mr. Hogg:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Yes, indeed, we did look at a number of models, and at the Food and Drug Administration in particular. The FDA is not quite as some people think it is. For example, meat and poultry safety in the United States is the responsibility not of the FDA, but of the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth):
Will the Minister reflect on my experience in dealing with his Ministry on a relevant
30 Jan 1997 : Column 530
My local authority has taken the lead on behalf of several others, and has incurred enormous costs in pursuing the matter in the interests of public health. When the council approached the Department of the Environment the other day for support because of the enormous costs that it has incurred, it received short shrift.
Does the Minister understand that those of us who are aware of the problem will wonder how he can find the resources for yet another quango, and deny them to those who do not need imagination because they are--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. That is a very long question.
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Gentleman's comments sound like a criticism of the much more expensive policies for an agency advanced by those on his Front Bench, or a request for additional public spending. On the first part of his question, the fact that he was able to raise the matter with Ministers, and the fact that, under our system, they are accountable demonstrate the good sense of our approach.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Is the Minister aware that the public will take the view that, every time there is a crisis, the Government make up their approach to food safety as they go along? With BSE, E. coli, and even dioxins about eight years ago, some of us called for a separation of duties. The problem with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that it is linked to the rich farming lobby. Until there is a separation of duties, the public will understand that the Tory party running the Ministry cares only about the rich farmers who line its pockets and vote for it.
Mr. Hogg:
In rather a convoluted way, I think the hon. Gentleman is giving me his support. As I have explained to the House, we are separating the functions in a dramatic way. We are making a division between the function of formulating and carrying through policy, which will be the responsibility of Ministers accountable to the House, and the function of the council, which will be to form views on food safety and related matters, and to communicate them publicly to the country, to Parliament and elsewhere. That division of functions is at the heart of our proposals--and, incidentally, is denied by Members on the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
May I urge a little humility on the Minister when he replies to questions? After all, he has an awful lot to be humble about, in terms of his recent track record. Does he not grasp the fact that no one will believe that any food safety organisation or committee will be genuinely impartial if it must report to a Minister in a producing Department such as his?
Unless the consumer and the producer are kept separate, no one will believe that a Minister such as himself is not primarily concerned with the interests of the
30 Jan 1997 : Column 531
Mr. Hogg:
There is a pleasing irony in the hon. Gentleman urging me to be humble. Nevertheless, I shall take advice whence it comes.
On the broad question, we have every interest in choosing as members of the council independent-minded, prestigious people who speak with real authority. We have every interest, too, in ensuring that the chairman of the council is such a person, so that he or she speaks with real authority when expressing opinions. The chairman and the council will be under a duty to go public with their views. For example, they will make an annual report to Ministers, which will be laid before Parliament, and the conclusions of their meetings and of any formal reports that they may make during the year will be published. Those people will have authority because of their background and experience. They will also wish to be judged well by their peers, and I think that that will greatly enhance the authority of their pronouncements.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am prepared to take questions from those hon. Members who are already standing, but perhaps the questions could be shorter and snappier.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
Is this not an entirely fraudulent proposal, given the Government's neglect of food safety enforcement? Is it not a fact that, in 1992, environmental health officers served 22,000 improvement notices, but that in 1995 that figure plummeted to 2,000--barely one tenth of its former level? Next Monday, the House will consider the revenue support grant settlement.
30 Jan 1997 : Column 532
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I asked for short and snappy questions. I call Mr. Hogg.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |