| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We could learn another lesson from our continental neighbours, on the role of co-operatives, which are much more important on the continent than in this country. They protect both producers and consumers, and I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's views--as a co-operative Member of Parliament--about how we can encourage the growth of co-operatives in Britain. That is an important step forward.
Mr. Tyler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I endorse his remarks fully. We have failed in this country to direct the necessary investment from all levels of government to the development of the co-operative movement. A sad result is that competition in other European states between the co-operatives representing the primary producers and the big retailing giants is much more healthy and lively than competition in this country. When the report of the competition agency--I think that that is its new title--into the supermarkets is available to the House and when the investigation of the monopoly tendencies in milk retailing is concluded, I hope that there will be a real recognition of the important role of co-operatives in the future.
Let me revert to the way in which this measure will differ from previous legislation. It is remarkable to note that, in the past, officials seemed always to target the small producers. I cannot believe--it is simply not credible--that shortfalls and failures did not occur also among larger manufacturers and producers. It is clear that successive Governments often complicated matters by adding to the recipe passed to us from Brussels in the form of EU directives and, in the process, radically changing its essence. In many other European states, such as France and Holland, small specialist producers have gained artisan status. In so doing, they have qualified for a less bureaucratic and less rigorous imposition of regulation. They have not suffered the same regulatory nightmare that would ultimately put them out of business, but our specialist producers still suffer that overload.
The new agency must have a clarity of purpose that will put principle at its centre. For example, it cannot ignore its responsibility to keep the public informed about its activities. Through research, and through the total transparency and openness to which the right hon. Member for South Shields referred, I believe that it will be possible to regain the trust of consumers and producers. However, there are no half measures: the agency must be seen to provide all information and to withhold none. It must be seen to put all the evidence before the public rather than providing its own interpretation of the evidence. If it does not supply all the facts, it will quickly lose whatever credibility it has gained through its actions. The agency will be viewed with the same suspicion that the present system has attracted unless there is an evident sea change at its inception. That is why we believe that the agency must be free from vested interest from the top.
People have become increasingly concerned about the extent to which quangos operate behind closed doors. That has been true ever since the previous Conservative Government allowed many quangos to flourish.
When Professor James was first asked to draw up proposals for a Food Standards Agency in early 1997, he envisaged a body that would examine the entire food issue. Such a body would have powers of access regarding auditing, surveillance and enforcement from plough to plate. There was an acceptance that food touches on a variety of interests across the fields of agriculture, the environment and even trade. As is apparent from the problems with which the World Trade Organisation has grappled recently, trade will become increasingly important.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk was entirely correct to say that the public must be reassured that imports--which constitute 30 per cent. of the food we consume--are treated in the same way as home-produced goods. There must be an absolutely level playing field. I wish that had been the case under the previous Conservative Government; for example, my efforts to persuade Ministers in that Government to attack the problem of the import of substandard pork and pigmeat products fell on deaf ears. I am glad that the Labour Government are at least listening, although progress is mighty slow.
The draft legislation that developed from Professor James's report covered a remit that was somewhat shrunken from that which he originally intended. However, after the consultations, we have now developed a wider remit, and that is helpful. Of course, the central principle of the agency is that of food safety; its primary role is to ensure that food is placed on our plate in a safe condition. That means that the food must be produced, handled, transported, packaged and even sold with the minimum risk of contamination.
However, I am glad that we are now moving beyond that core responsibility. There is not a great difference between what is safe and what is healthy--or perhaps there should not be a great difference. If we move along a continuum from one to the other, we adopt a more realistic attitude to the whole of food production. A fried breakfast may be safe to eat--that is, free from contamination--but it is not necessarily healthy. If it is eaten in such quantity that it causes serious damage to a middle-aged male like me, that is clearly a real problem.
Mr. Tyler:
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is the epitome of that problem.
Mr. Maclean:
I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I sometimes eat a fried breakfast--very occasionally. Does he not realise that no foods are unhealthy in themselves and that it is our unhealthy diet about which we should be concerned? It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to talk about moving from safe foods to healthy foods. It is the overall balance of what we do--the exercise that we take and the foods that we eat--that we should be concerned about, not individual foods that he may perceive as being bad for us.
Mr. Tyler:
I am surprised to find that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Of course he is right;
Ms Keeble:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler:
I want to make some progress, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
Clause 1(2) sets out that the agency will have a role in regard to nutrition and diet. That is right, and balance is part of that role. Before I was re-elected to this place, I was an adviser to the Meat and Livestock Commission, and I had a discussion with an expert nutritionist after he had presented some information to a wider audience. I asked him to give me the real answer. That eminent doctor gave me the league table of importance in relation to diet and health. He said, "First, choose your parents with care". That was at the top of the list. Secondly, a long way down the list, came stress. He said that one was far more likely to damage one's health from worrying about diet than from the diet. The next factor was smoking--I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border indulges. Diet comes a long way down the list. That is absolutely true.
However, equally, it is true that, for some people, at some times, the elements of their diet are extremely important. That presents us with a real dilemma, and we must not dodge it. We must get the balance right. Some of those who responded to the Agriculture Committee pointed out the narrowness of the borderline. For example, the evidence of Marks and Spencer stated:
"Some of the media response to the recent COMA report shows how easily health advice can be rejected as interference by the 'Nanny' state. The Food Standards Agency must not be allowed to jeopardise its credibility in this way."
That is a balanced statement. However, it will not be an easy matter and, on occasions, we shall criticise the agency for being too prescriptive and too firm in its advice and for not being sufficiently flexible, or willing to accept that a balance is required. It is right that the Bill makes no attempt to separate food safety from food quality or from food standards. There is a continuum, and we are right to realise that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |