| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.15 am
It seems odd that the Bill establishes, and a Government amendment reaffirms, Scottish competence to deal with such issues and to take into account the nature and magnitude of the risks to public health, which is the very core of the beef on the bone issue, while what the Government are actually doing--or rather, failing to do, which is to lift the absurd ban--shows a total disregard of the principles in the Bill.
Dr. Godman:
In relation to Lords amendment No. 16, I have every confidence in the Scottish medical officer of health--just as I have every confidence in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament--to ensure that the Bill and the regulations are administered fairly and effectively.
However, what would happen if Ministers in the Scottish Parliament expressed concern about the way in which fish farms were inspected by the agency? A few minutes ago, I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how important that industry is to our coastal and island communities. What powers does the Scottish Parliament possess to change or introduce regulations governing such access to fish farms or other Scottish enterprises? We may require some sort of concordat, because Scottish Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament may have far greater knowledge of the local conditions surrounding such industries than do Ministers or Members here--with the obvious and estimable exception of Scottish Members of this Parliament.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale):
I welcome the amendments in so far as they
To follow what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, I do not believe that anything in the Bill specifically states that the Scottish Parliament may in due course choose to legislate separately on such matters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Nineteen minutes past 12 in the morning is not perhaps the most felicitous time to ask this question, so I preface it by saying that the Minister may wish to reply by putting a note in the Library. A judgment on beef on the bone has been made in the sheriff court in Scotland--a judgment that is very awkward from the Government's point of view. Ministers know that that judgment opens a Pandora's box of problems, so if they cannot comment off the top of their head, will they put a note in the Library about their attitude to the sheriff court's finding?
Dr. Brand:
I shall not enter into the beef on the bone debate, but I invite the Minister to clarify the mechanism that will be used. As I understand it, the Food Standards Agency will give advice to Ministers and will publish that advice. I imagine that the relevant Ministers in the relevant nations will be free to reject that advice, or to accept it. If that is the case, clearly it would be acceptable to have beef on the bone in Wales, but not in England--I am not sure what the Scots want to do.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
We should have it everywhere.
Dr. Brand:
That is a personal opinion. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on my point.
Ms Quin:
I have been somewhat surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the debate on what is a technical amendment. The amendment relates to Executive devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 and we cannot reopen the debate on the devolution settlement, as some of the contributions appeared to try to tempt me to do. Legislative responsibilities for food safety and standards, including beef on the bone, were already devolved by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The issue of beef on the bone has been debated several times and will doubtless be raised again in various ways.
Amendment No. 16 is simply a technical amendment which will ensure that Scottish Ministers have power of direction on matters within their devolved competence, including matters that are the subject of Executive devolution, as well as directly under the Scotland Act 1998. It will make no significant difference to the powers of direction, but it is necessary for consistency within the general framework of devolution in Scotland.
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a felicitous sense of timing, but my understanding is that the case he mentioned is still before the courts and, therefore, I cannot comment on it even though he tempted me to do so. Whether I am relieved about that, I will keep to myself.
We have had an interesting debate, but it has ranged much wider than the technical nature of the amendment would suggest. None the less, I hope that the amendment will gain the approval of the House.
Mr. Dalyell:
For all the levity, the case I mentioned is a serious issue. When the courts finally come to a judgment, MAFF will have to make a statement on it.
Ms Quin:
I was not commenting on the seriousness or otherwise of the issue. I was simply saying that it is currently before the courts.
Mr. Fallon:
As I understand Lords amendment No. 22, it would allow the Scottish Parliament to confer an additional function of its choosing on the Food Standards Agency, which may be exercisable in Scotland, but presumably, once conferred, may also be exercisable in England. Can the Minister explain the amendment?
Ms Quin:
Lords amendment No. 22 is intended simply to remove any doubt that may arise about the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to modify the functions of the agency in their own areas of jurisdiction, which have already been established. That does not necessarily mean that Scotland or Northern Ireland would do something different from England and Wales. However, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legislative competence on food safety and standards matters, we need to ensure that there is no doubt about their ability to make changes to the agency's functions which have been agreed across the UK.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 19, line 28, at end insert--
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.--[Ms Quin.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a).
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden):
I shall speak to amendment (a) with confidence and with the full support of the National Farmers Union, which has written to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) saying that the amendment would open the door to better country-of-origin labelling, and that that would assist consumers to buy British, on the basis of quality, origin, taste and safety.
The amendment would also encourage action better to inform consumers, through labelling and otherwise, about how the product has reached the supermarket shelf.
Farmers producing to the high welfare standards required by British law in the pig industry, for example, could then command the premium that they well deserve. We urge the Government to grab this opportunity, at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House, to give the Food Standards Agency the power to regulate the sourcing of food in this country.
On repeated occasions during the Bill's progress, Opposition Members have tried to get the question of labelling incorporated into the FSA. It seems ironic that one of the key reasons for bringing the agency into being is to protect public health from food risks, yet failure to give the agency responsibility for food sourcing and the labelling of food will simply prevent members of the public from protecting themselves against real or perceived risks. That is why we urge the Government most strongly to consider accepting the amendment, even at this very late stage.
The fact that the co-director of the Food Commission has described present labelling arrangements as a shambles should serve to encourage the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go further than his most recent statements about changing the guidelines on labelling. Indeed, speaking on BBC1's "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 24 October, he said:
The Minister went on, in his interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, to state:
("(2A) In this Act the expression "interests of consumers in relation to food" includes (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) interests in relation to the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may be applied to food.")
"I do think if people check where the product is sourced from they can make informed choices."
However, people cannot do that. At the height of the Belgian dioxin scare, my nanny bought chicken breast from the local supermarket for my children's tea. From the label, there was no way of knowing where the meat had come from, so I followed the Minister's good advice of "when in doubt, throw it out".
"My personal choice is to look for the Meat and Livestock Commission's 'Assured British' label".
Conservative Members wholeheartedly support that scheme, but its impact is limited. Out of curiosity, I went to my local supermarket and hunted--in vain--for British smoked back bacon. There was Dutch and Danish bacon of that variety, as well as many packs with no country of origin identified at all. To work, the Assured British scheme must be backed by statute. That is one of the strong reasons why we are looking for the incorporation of labelling into the work of the Food Standards Agency.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |