| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way. That was unique at the time, Since then, we have revisited the Child Support Agency several times, and that was the result of legislation that was not properly scrutinised because everyone thought it was a good idea. This Government have gone out of their way to consult on this idea on no less than four separate occasions. We want to get it right. The idea is well supported, but we want to be sure that all the right questions are asked.
This is not an anti-trade measure. No one has put it in those terms, but I want to make that clear.
Mr. Paice:
We did not say that.
Mr. Rooker:
No, it has been unspoken, but I want to make it clear that the agency will not discriminate between home-produced and imported foods. It will have no power to do so. Indeed, the Government have no power to do so. Food that is put on sale in this country has to conform to the existing food safety legislation. There are many issues relating to the methods of production of that food abroad, including perhaps welfare conditions, that are debatable. However, to suggest that the agency will allow food to be imported that is less safe but cheaper than our super-safe food, and that people will thereby be poisoned, is nonsense. There is no possibility of that.
Miss McIntosh:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Rooker:
No, there is not enough time.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that clause 19 allowed Ministers to make secondary legislation to prevent publication of information. Clause 19 does not give any powers to Ministers, but relates to existing statutory bars.
Clause 25 was also mentioned in that connection. We have searched the relevant legislation to ensure that the Food Standards Agency has access to all the information that it is required to have. For example, veterinary and other products are covered by confidentiality under the Medicines Acts, but the agency will have to have access to that information. Therefore, we have gone through the legislation to lift every statutory bar that we could find. We have included in the Bill provisions that mean that, if we find any other statutory bars to information that we think that the Food Standards Agency should have, the Government will be able to lift them. The reality is the exact opposite of what some have imagined. We want to be absolutely open and transparent.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) asked about the advice from the Select Committee on Agriculture and whether Ministers should be able to decide about removing the duty of enforcement from local authorities. That responsibility already resides with Ministers under the Food Safety Act 1990. That provision was part of the draft legislation, and remains in this Bill.
The House will understand that the participation of local authorities raises a difficult problem. One of the agency's three new functions is to set standards and to monitor their enforcement by local authorities. There are more than 300 local authorities, with different policies, budgets and concerns. We do not say that they should all be the same, but there must be a degree of consistency, and therefore monitoring.
One would not willingly take away powers from elected authorities, but it is possible that the agency may ask one authority to take over another's work if there is a failure. However, there are many examples around the country of local authorities co-operating and working collectively, and we want that to continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central asked about charging for research. If the research generates results whose patents are of commercial value, the agency, if it so wishes, will be able to sell those results, or to license them to industry. There is nothing wrong with that.
We are continuing to undertake an enormous amount of background work on risk. One of the research contracts that we recently put out for next year's food safety research was for a study of the best way to communicate to the public risk elements related to food. We understand that we have a lot to learn and that we do not have all the answers. Communicating these matters to the public is one of the agency's fundamental tasks. Although bringing about a reduction in food poisoning cases will not be a test of the agency's success--we do not know why such cases are caused, so setting a target for such a reduction is not on--the ability to communicate risks successfully to the public without closing down an industry by accident is very important.
I shall finish by referring to what I took to be an attack by the hon. Member for South Suffolk on the integrity of Sir Robert May and Professor Liam Donaldson. In a letter to the hon. Gentleman, they have made it clear that neither would countenance any interference in the production of medical and scientific assessments. They added that, when the draft of their paper was considered by the Cabinet Committee, they suggested that it needed to be made less technical. They also suggested that it should include reference to the Royal Society's publication on the work of Dr. Pusztai. Such a reference was included in the final draft, and a set of recommendations for the future were also included. They added that at no time was any pressure exerted on them, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Suffolk will apologise to both of those people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy):
I beg to move,
In many ways, the debate should not be taking place here. The Assembly should be debating the figures, but that has proved impossible. Even if devolution occurs soon, we could not have left the debate until later in the year. We could not afford the risk that our vital services in Northern Ireland, including health, education, agriculture and local government, might run out of money. After devolution, it will be for the Assembly to approve any supplementary estimate. I know that most hon. Members join me in hoping that this will be the last time that the House has to debate the estimates in this way.
We face a crucial two weeks in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are meeting with parties in Northern Ireland in the next few days. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland will join us later this week. Our aim is to end the current impasse and to ensure that devolution can occur by July in Belfast as well as in Cardiff and Edinburgh.
The 10 Departments are decided, as are the six north-south bodies. The Assembly has made extensive preparations for its operation. The other aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and the Police Commission, have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. We are left with two key issues: how to set up the Executive Government and how to make sure that decommissioning happens as the agreement sets out. As all Northern Ireland Members will testify, we face difficult times in July, but I believe that the agreement is robust and that a majority of people in Northern Ireland approve of it.
We are committed to healing the divisions in Northern Ireland society. We recognise the work done by many groups to bring about mutual understanding, respect and reconciliation. We support initiatives to that end and we have provided £9 million for community relations programmes.
I emphasise that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Assembly can only be provisional. They are intended to sustain it through the summer recess. It was always recognised that further provision would be needed. There is no dispute about the fact that some items were omitted from the original projections and others were underestimated. Assuming early devolution, the revised provision can be voted by the Assembly as soon as possible after the recess.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(a) any expenditure incurred by the Food Standards Agency established by the Act;
(b) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.--[Mr. Betts.]
9.59 pm
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
The order authorises £4,282 million for Northern Ireland Departments in the current financial year which, together with the £3,120 million voted in February, brings the total to £7,402 million for the current financial year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |