PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO
THE REPORT
WEDNESDAY 22 APRIL 1998
Members present:
Mr Peter Luff, in the Chair
| Mr Tim Collins | Mr Austin Mitchell
|
| Mr Andrew Goerge | Mrs Diana Organ
|
| Mr John Hayes | Mr 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, 1 | Noes, 4
|
| |
| Mr Tim Collins | Mr 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, 5 | Noes, 1
|
| |
| Mr Andrew George | Mr 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, 2 | Noes, 5
|
| |
| Mr Tim Collins | Mr Andrew George
|
| Mr John Hayes | Ms 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, 3 | Noes, 3
|
| |
| Mr Andrew George | Ms Sally Keeble
|
| Mr John Hayes | Mr Austin Mitchell
|
| Mr Mark Todd | Mrs Diana Organ
|
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the
Noes.
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes, 1
|
| |
| Mr Andrew George | Mr 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, 5 | Noes, 2
|
| |
| Mr Andrew George | Mr Tim Collins
|
| Ms Sally Keeble | Mr 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, 1 | Noes, 6
|
| |
| Mr Tim Collins | Mr 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.
| 
