| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me three times.
May I switch the debate slightly? The agency will deal with health and hygiene standards. Last week, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about genetically modified crops, the Minister seemed to say that if permission were given for a GM crop to be grown in another European country, there would be nothing to stop a company from applying to produce the appropriate technology here, and to grow in this country the crop that had been licensed to be grown in another country.
If permission has been given for a crop that is not accepted to be hygienic or safe in this country to be grown in another European country, will the agency be able to deal with the problem, or will it be outside the agency's remit?
Mr. Brown:
I am not sure whether that is an environmental protection question, which would be outside the scope of the agency, or a food safety question, which would be entirely within its scope. If it is a food safety question, the regulatory regimes will be applied by the agency. If it believes that a product is to be put on the market in the United Kingdom that would be injurious to human health, it will have the power to say no. If there is a need for Ministers to act to protect the public, of course they will take such action.
Environmental protection is a slightly different matter, because of the United Kingdom's unique farm and environmental structures. The Government are determined to conduct trials before any genetically modified crops are introduced commercially, and to assess the impact on the rest of the environment. That strikes me as a sensible and methodical way in which to go about things. Environmental protection issues, however, are outside the scope of the agency's work.
The Bill contains provisions to ensure that the agency acts reasonably and proportionately, and that it is duly accountable to Parliament through Ministers. Clause 22 provides for a statement of the agency's objectives and practices to be drawn up, incorporating guiding principles that we laid down in the White Paper. The agency will also be required by clause 23 to take account of risks, costs and benefits to all concerned before making decisions or taking action, and any action should be based on the best scientific advice.
Ministers will retain the power to direct the agency should it fail seriously. We regard that as an essential safeguard if democratic accountability and control are to be retained. However, we have noted the views of the Select Committee, and no longer provide a power to direct the agency not to publish information when there are national security concerns. Although it is theoretically possible that such situations could arise, they will be rare if they occur at all, and the Government feel that they would be dealt with better in other ways.
As foreshadowed in the draft Bill, this Bill provides a new power in clause 27 to make regulations to establish a statutory notification scheme relating to different types of food-borne disease.
As the House will know, food safety is a devolved subject. The Bill, therefore, contains special provisions to ensure that the agency is accountable to the devolved authorities, and that Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can perform their devolved functions effectively. The Bill provides for the agency to be a United Kingdom body, but we made it clear when consulting on the draft Bill that the Government would consult formally with the devolved authorities to establish whether they were content to proceed with United Kingdom legislation on that basis. There has as yet been no agreement on devolution in Northern Ireland, but a debate is to take place in the Scottish Parliament, and the Health Committee of the Welsh Assembly will also be considering the principles in the Bill.
The Bill includes powers, in clauses 32 and 33, to deal with the consequences of any change by the devolved Administrations. The Bill also provides for the agency to co-operate with the new food safety promotion board, which will operate in the whole of Ireland after devolution in Northern Ireland.
The working arrangements between my Department and the Department of Health have made good progress in the joint food safety and standards group. On behalf of Ministers in both Departments, I should like to express my thanks to the officials who have been involved in that work--which has not only been done because it is right in itself, but has paved the way for the agency's establishment.
We are well advanced in preparing for the new agency--which the Bill will enable to operate as a separate legal entity. Our aim is that the agency should be formally launched in the first half of next year.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
I apologise to the Minister for not being in the Chamber for the first part of his speech, but I shall study very carefully in Hansard the section that I missed.
The Opposition welcome the establishment of a Food Standards Agency, and are glad that the Government have decided to honour what they described as
When the Prime Minister wrote in the preface to the 1998 White Paper that the Government would do away with
The Bill is significantly changed from the draft Bill, which was published some months ago. One change is unreservedly welcome: the Government's climbdown on charging. Labour's original proposal to hit every small shop in the country with a flat-rate charge--precisely the same amount as a huge out-of-town superstore would pay--was unfair, unjustified and wrong. Conservative Members opposed that plan from the day that it was announced, and, after months of Conservative campaigning, the Government have finally seen sense. I trust that they will be equally ready to listen today, and to make the other necessary changes to the Bill.
As I am on the subject of charges, I should say that there remains some doubt about how permanent and complete the Government's decision not to hit small shops will be.
Mr. Nick Brown:
I can help the hon. Gentleman on that. The clause dealing with the levy, and which would be the statutory foundation for such a charge, has been removed from the Bill. There is no primary legislation, and therefore no levy--more permanent than that one cannot get.
Mr. Yeo:
I am relieved to hear that. However, does the Minister realise that the anxiety about the issue arises from the position of the Meat Hygiene Service, which is to be transferred to the new Food Standards Agency? The MHS already makes very substantial charges to slaughterhouses for inspection, and the burden of those high charges is driving many slaughterhouses out of business. Therefore, the principle of the agency--effectively via the MHS--making charges to parts of the industry already seems to be established. For that reason, the Minister's assurance is particularly badly needed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
The Bill proposes no changes to the Meat Hygiene Service charges, which are set at exactly the same levels as we inherited from the previous, Conservative Government. We are proposing no changes to those charges. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Opposition now have an entirely new policy on the matter--that the MHS should not charge to recover its expenses, as required by European directives--will he say so?
Mr. Yeo:
The Minister should have listened to what I said. I did not say that there was a new proposal from the Conservative party. I merely pointed out that in the context of the Bill and the Government's climbdown on the decision to charge small shops, there were already opportunities for the Government to charge businesses that are affected by the Bill.
Miss McIntosh:
Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend. I understand that we are the only country in Europe that is interpreting the French word "veterinaire" to mean fully qualified veterinary surgeons. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on why we have interpreted that word so strictly, as environmental health inspectors or Health and Safety Executive officers could simply be retrained? Why should Spanish vets be allowed to do this job when they cannot tell the difference between the animals concerned?
Mr. Yeo:
My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point to which the Minister of State will, I hope,
"one of our most important manifesto commitments",
namely, to
"establish an independent food standards agency".
However, the agency as proposed in the Bill falls rather a long way short of keeping the Government's pledge.
"the old climate of secrecy and suspicion and replace it with modern, open arrangements which will deliver real improvements in standards",
he raised our hopes. However, in its current form, the Bill will not achieve that aim. Nevertheless, we continue to live in hope.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |