Select Committee on Agriculture Fourth Report


PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE REPORT

WEDNESDAY 22 APRIL 1998

Members present:

Mr Peter Luff, in the Chair


Mr Tim CollinsMr Austin Mitchell
Mr Andrew GoergeMrs Diana Organ
Mr John HayesMr Mark Todd
Ms Sally Keeble


The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report [Food Safety], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 9 read and agreed to.

A paragraph - (Mr Tim Collins) - brought up and read, as follows:

" The United Kingdom's food safety problems will not be solved by creating a new and expensive bureaucracy with imperfect democratic accountability. Precisely because food safety issues are so important, they should be decided and supervised by those whom the people elect, not shadowy figures operating in the dark. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency does not offer the right way forward. A new and genuinely independent committee to provide robust and public advice to Ministers who would remain accountable to Parliament for their decisions - the alternative offered by the last Government - would have been a better way to proceed."

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 1Noes, 4
Mr Tim CollinsMr Andrew George
Ms Sally Keeble
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mrs Diana Organ


Paragraph 10 read.

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 5Noes, 1
Mr Andrew GeorgeMr Tim Collins
Ms Sally Keeble
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mrs Diana Organ
Mr Mark Todd

Paragraphs 11 to 21 read and agreed to

.

Paragraph 22 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 23 to 28 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 29 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 30 to 41 agreed to.

Paragraphs 42 and 43 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 44 to 50 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 51 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 52 to 88 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 89 read, as follows:

"In his evidence to us, Professor James confessed that he had failed to recognise that the nutritional responsibilities of the FSA would be a controversial issue, but pointed out that globally ten times more ill health is attributable to the inappropriate nutritional quality of diet than to infection. On this basis, he suggested that scaling down the FSA's nutritional remit might have grave consequences for the organisation's long-term success: "If it is downgraded, it will be a very severe setback...The Australian experience has shown that the Australian Agency, which did not specify nutrition as absolutely clearly within its orbit, has run into a major problem." The British Medical Association, the Co-operative Union and Safeway were also of the opinion that the FSA must oversee nutritional issues. However, for other witnesses, including Marks and Spencer and the British Retail Consortium, nutrition was perceived as a secondary consideration for the FSA which might divert it from its overriding purpose of enforcing food hygiene standards. Other groups were more strongly opposed to the inclusion of nutrition in the FSA's remit. The Food and Drink Federation, Sainsbury's and the Farmers' Union of Wales all believed that taking on responsibilities for nutrition might be counterproductive for the FSA, and might undermine public confidence in the Agency by embroiling it in "possible dispute over the nutritional qualities of various foods". We were interested to hear from public interest groups in the USA concerned with food safety that they thought there were merits in excluding nutrition from the remit of such agencies. We favour the inclusion of aspects of nutrition policy within the remit of the FSA, although we are concerned about the lack of clarity within the White Paper about the division of responsibilities between the Agency and the Department of Health. Nutrition is not a second-order issue: poorly-balanced diets cause much greater damage to health than food poisoning, and over the long-term the Agency could achieve significantly more in its nutritional activities than in its food safety role. However, on nutritional matters, the Agency's influence on events will inevitably be more indirect, less measurable and less immediate than in its policy on food safety. In the first few years of its existence, therefore, the Agency will be judged mainly on its achievements in relation to food safety, rather than nutrition and health."

Amendment proposed, in line19, to leave out from the word "agencies." to the end of the paragraph and add the words "We do not favour the inclusion of aspects of nutrition policy within the remit of the FSA, and we are concerned about the lack of clarity within the White Paper about the division of responsibilities between the Agency and the Department of Health. It was abundantly clear from the evidence presented to us that there is nothing approaching a national consensus on nutritional issues. Granting responsibility for nutrition to the Food Standards Agency runs the risk of turning it into a posturing creature of political correctness, determined to remove treasured British foods such as chips and white bread from our diet. The Agency would become known and loathed as the "food police". Fiascos such as the mishandling by the Government of the ban on beef-on-the-bone, rightly overturned by the courts, would become regular events." - (Mr Tim Collins.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 2Noes, 5
Mr Tim CollinsMr Andrew George
Mr John HayesMs Sally Keeble
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mrs Diana Organ
Mr Mark Todd


Another Amendment proposed, in line 24, to leave out the words: "However, on nutritional matters, the Agency's influence on events will inevitably be more indirect, less measurable and less immediate than its policy on food safety. In the first few years of its existence, therefore, the Agency will be judged mainly on its achievements in relation to food safety, rather than nutrition and health." - (Ms Sally Keeble.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "However, on nutritional matters, the Agency's influence on events will inevitably be more indirect, less measurable and less immediate than its policy on food safety." -(Mr Mark Todd.)

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 3Noes, 3
Mr Andrew GeorgeMs Sally Keeble
Mr John HayesMr Austin Mitchell
Mr Mark ToddMrs Diana Organ


Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 4Noes, 1
Mr Andrew GeorgeMr John Hayes
Ms Sally Keeble
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mrs Diana Organ


Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 5Noes, 2
Mr Andrew GeorgeMr Tim Collins
Ms Sally KeebleMr John Hayes
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mrs Diana Organ
Mr Mark Todd

Paragraph 90 read, as follows:



"The proposed organisational structure of the FSA is described in chapter six. In essence it is very similar to that articulated in Professor James's report, with the Agency having NPDB status, but with an expanded Commission of 12 persons drawn from "...a wider public interest background without any specific affiliation." Whilst agreeing wholeheartedly with the notion of impartial and objective Commissioners, we find it highly unlikely that persons of the calibre required will be found without some 'specific affiliation' - whether it be derived from experience in local government, academic, corporate or other non-Governmental sectors. Indeed, the Commission's utilisation of collective experience gained in these different fields by individual Commissioners should be viewed as a strength rather than a weakness, providing the basis for the informed decisions which must be taken by a truly independent FSA. We note the insertion at this point in the White Paper of the phrase 'wider public interest background'. Professor James supported the broadening of the word "consumer", as contained in his report, to "public interest" on the grounds that "you do not get locked into the Consumers' Association, the National Consumer Council or the other 60 organisations which are intimately involved in this area".

Amendment proposed, in line11, after the words "truly independent FSA." to insert the words "In particular it is important for the credibility of the Agency with the food industry and consumers alike that the Commissioners should be seen to include both meat-eaters and vegetarians." -(Mr Tim Collins.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.


Ayes, 1Noes, 6
Mr Tim CollinsMr Andrew George
Mr John Hayes
Ms Sally Keeble
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mrs Diana Organ
Mr Mark Todd

Paragraph agreed to.



Paragraphs 91 to 99 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 100 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 101 to 122 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 123 read, amended and agreed to.

Annex (Glossary) read, amended and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House. -(The Chairman.)

* * *

  [Adjourned till Tuesday 28 April at a quarter past Ten o'clock.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 29 April 1998