Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): We welcome the amendments and the inclusion of fish farms. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but I do not know of many sects or religions that might eat koi carp. On the other hand, I do know of people who catch trout that may well have been fish-farmed earlier in their existence. It makes sense to include fish farms in the Bill.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): I have a small concern about the amendment. Although I welcome the addition of fish farming to the Bill, the definition goes too far and may potentially include fish that are too young.
I understand that there are specialist breeding centres where the fish are spawned and, as small fry, are transported in tanks in their millions to the fish farms or breeding grounds. At that stage, the fish may be given foodstuffs, or canthazaxin or other chemicals. They are
weighed as they begin to put on flesh and therefore become more suitable for human consumption. Of course, it is vital that they and their foodstuffs are monitored and checked, but I am not sure what would be the benefit to the Government or the Food Standards Agency of including the very earliest stages of the fish-breeding process.
That is my simple point. It is not a strong point of principle. Rather, I am not sure of the merit of including those stages in the Bill. I would be happy if the Minister could explain the logic behind that part of the definition, which, in my reading of amendment No. 2, includes those early stages of fish breeding and rearing.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 7, and the biggest problem facing many abattoirs, which is the poor quality of the staff, many of whom have come from Spain and do not speak English very well. In an abattoir in my area, a young Spanish fellow attended the dressing of a carcase, and believing that it was that of a bullock, said that the spine should be taken out. The carcase was that of a pig. Such ignorance among many young vets who come in to make up numbers, simply because the word "veterinaire" has been mistranslated by officials, is causing grievous problems in many abattoirs.
I receive numerous letters from abattoirs on the subject. One letter states that a study has shown that the largest single cause of meat contamination was the inspection process in the slaughterhouse. In another abattoir, the strictest enforcers of hygiene standards are the customers--the men from the supermarkets--which is as it should be. They found that the inspectors in that abattoir were not wearing clean overalls, were going from one designated zone to another and were using contaminated tools.
I welcome amendment No. 7, as it is essential that vets understand the basic principles of hygiene. I regret that some of those in abattoirs do not.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I welcome the inclusion of fish farming. For us in Scotland, fish farming by and large means salmon farming. It is an important industry employing thousands of people in rural communities, but the licensing of such farms has caused considerable consternation among our pelagic, demersal and shellfish fishing communities. It is therefore important that the quality standards that exist in the fish--generally salmon--farms are maintained at a high level, and it is right that there should be inspection of those farms.
Ms Quin:
Most of the comments on this group of amendments relate to the amendment on fish farms. I thought I heard one of my colleagues unkindly suggest that some of the comments amounted to red herrings.
Fish farming is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out, because of the number of fish farms and the employment that they provide for increasing numbers of people.
My understanding is that ornamental fish farms would not be covered by the provision, because the powers of entry can be used only to carry out the agency's responsibilities--that is, for food safety and other consumer interests in relation to food.
I recognise that the inclusion of fish farms has been welcomed. It makes sense that that should be specifically stated in the Bill, as hon. Members have pointed out.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to amendment No.7. I am pleased that he welcomed the amendment, although some of his comments were curious. The people who have powers of entry must respect conditions of hygiene. It is an important issue, but some of the fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed should be covered by other parts of the Bill dealing with the agency's responsibility for training and standards of staff working in such establishments.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.
Ms Quin:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 15.
Ms Quin:
The Government accepted these two amendments, which were tabled by Cross-Bench and Opposition peers. Lords amendment No. 6 relates to the requirement on the agency to report in its annual report on its own performance as an enforcement authority. That relates primarily to the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was extensively debated in the House and by the Special Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
The Government have made it clear throughout that they believe that it is right that the MHS, which is responsible for enforcement in a key area of food safety, should be part of the agency, but we also made it clear that we believe that it should be subject to rigorous audit of its performance--that point was made strongly by my predecessor--and that its officers should behave reasonably, in accordance with the principles of better regulation.
Amendment No. 6 will put in the Bill the clear requirement that the agency should include in its report to Parliament information on its activities where it acts as an enforcement authority in relation to specific standards which will be set for its performance, and in relation to specific objectives and practices included in the agency's statement of objectives and practices, which, as hon. Members know, is required by clause 22. We have made
it clear that those objectives will include compliance with the better regulation principles. We believe that that will contribute to greater openness about the performance of the MHS, which has been of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I therefore hope that the House will agree that the amendment is helpful and will improve the Bill.
In a similar vein, amendment No. 15 requires that the agency's agreed statement of objectives and practices be laid before Parliament and the devolved legislatures. That will make a helpful contribution to openness. We expect the agency to consult interested bodies on its statement before it is finalised. I stress that the amendment was tabled by the Opposition--by Baroness Byford--and the Government believe that it will improve the Bill.
Mr. Paice:
The right hon. Lady is right: the amendment represents an improvement to the Bill--obviously we support it, because it was tabled by my noble Friend--but I must tell her that the improvement is tiny. It goes nowhere towards addressing the real concerns expressed by Conservative Members throughout the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration about the MHS and the dual role of enforcement and monitoring authority that the Food Standards Agency will play. It does not tell us how the two roles will be separated in practice--nor have the Government produced any convincing reason for their rejection of the advice of the Special Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), to which the Minister referred.
Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert--
("(3) Each annual report of the Agency shall contain a report on its activities during the year in enforcing any relevant legislation for which it is the enforcement authority and its performance in respect of--
(a) any standards under subsection (2) that apply to those activities ; and
(b) any objectives relating to those activities that are specified in the statement of objectives and practices under section 22.")
11.45 pm
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |