Examination of Witness (Questions 160
- 179)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
RT HON
NICHOLAS BROWN,
MP
160. You asked for it. This is the May, Donaldson,
Krebs body. What does it constitute and when is it expected to
do something?
(Mr Brown) The lead minister is the Secretary of State
for Health. The non ministerial government department which has
policy responsibility in this area is the new Food Standards Agency.
The professional advice that comes to the Agency, frankly it is
up to them to determine but clearly SEAC have an important part
to play in this. It is my hope that they will report by the autumn.
161. As far as farmers are concerned, as inevitably
is the case, they will believe it is a further case when the alarm
bells should be ringing because the worry will always be that
there will be a case for perhaps stronger regulation if risk-based
assessment shows that there may be dangers in one way or another.
How do we, if you like, make compatible the desire to reduce charging
costs of regulation and yet at the same time, given that it is
not in your departmental control, persuade others that there is
a balance to be struck?
(Mr Brown) This is a very important point and when
the Food Standards Agency was being set up specific provision
was made within the founding legislation for the Agency to advise
in a proportionate way, in other words that is a statutory obligation
on the Agency. I have no power to direct the Agency, indeed it
would be absolutely wrong if I did have such a power. The Agency
is the Government's independent adviser and the whole purpose
of setting it up as an independent agency is to make sure it is
the public interest, the interest of the consumers, that the state
collectively in its decision making is putting first.
162. So your answer would be that they have
to come up with their own findings independently?
(Mr Brown) Exactly so.
163. Then you will have to look at what the
repercussions of that are in terms of charges, about whether charges
may be increased, passed on or whatever?
(Mr Brown) If there are public protection burdens,
cost burdens, arising out of recommendations of those who have
responsibility for protecting the public, there is a further perfectly
legitimate debate about who should carry the costs, whether they
should be borne by the industry or by the taxpayer.
164. Or the consumer?
(Mr Brown) Or possibly the consumer. Because of the
range of things that I have done since becoming a Minister, it
is clear where my view lies. If it is necessary to regulate in
the public interest, then there is clearly a very strong casenot
in all circumstances, but clearly a very strong casefor
considering whether the public purse should in fact carry the
burden.
Chairman: Mr Todd on competitiveness.
Mr Todd
165. On the Agricultural Development Scheme,
you are putting £1 million into a scheme which will be similar
to that?
(Mr Brown) Yes.
166. How well has that scheme worked? Has it
been over-subscribed?
(Mr Brown) There are a range of bids. They are assessed
by officials within the Department on merit. Also on the earlier
schemes there were some very good schemes that had to be excluded
because there was not sufficient money. So yes, it is over-subscribed.
167. By how much? Is £1 million going to
make a lot of odds or not?
(Mr Brown) I do not have the figure, and I have to
tell you in any event that that would not be quite the right way
of looking at it, because the schemes are of variable quality.
168. That is a fair point. Taking the statement
that the Government will "encourage collaborative marketing
through their joint Building Business Advantage initiative",
what did that mean?
(Mr Brown) Exactly what it says.
169. Yes, but what? How?
(Mr Brown) In other words, we would use the scheme
to encourage the projects. I do not quite see what you mean.
170. To go back to the concrete example I gave
earlier of a group of farmers who wanted to establish a joint
enterprise to process and market local food, how would they best
approach the use of this?
(Mr Brown) The measure is targeted at supply chain
initiatives, groups working amongst farmers maybe to join a retailers'
supply chain club, for example. It is there to help with that
sort of initiative.
171. So it is an encouragement process rather
than direct aid and support?
(Mr Brown) And an advisory one.
172. One of the key issues in competitiveness
is business inputs in farming, costs such as fertilisers, pesticides,
chemicals and other kinds of things like that. I regularly get
approached by farmers claiming that they can buy far cheaper materials
overseas than are available in the British market place. Does
that concern you?
(Mr Brown) It concerns me enormously. The point is
regularly made about veterinary interventions, for example, but
also in the horticultural sector, in horticultural imports, it
is regularly put to me that they are more expensive here than
they are in individual countries on the Continent. I would like
to see the establishment of common product descriptions and common
marketing across the European Union.
173. How are we going to address that?
(Mr Brown) There are discussions that take place on
these trade issues at official level.
174. One of the claims is that the British approach
to licensing of some of these products is restrictive.
(Mr Brown) There are also issues about which licences
are applied for by the manufacturers. In other words, it is quite
a complex question, it is not straightforward.
175. Turning to the financing of the Action
Plan, how does this fit with the Comprehensive Spending Review?
All right.
(Mr Brown) There have been a series of frank exchanges.
176. Does that imply that you have already got
whatever you might have got out of the Comprehensive Spending
Review now, and that some have claimed that you have taken it
early?
(Mr Brown) Regrettably, no. I continue to fight my
corner as do other Ministers, but the truth is that I am competing
in the way that the Agriculture Department competes with other
claims on the public purse.
177. The support for research and development
has been a subject which has been raised by the Committee previously.
What prospects are there of at least maintaining the R and D budget
that the Ministry currently supports?
(Mr Brown) The departmental bid is under consideration
in the spending round. I attach enormous importance to the science
base of the Department and to our research and development endeavours
and being as protective of it as I can. I will not make a forecast,
because these discussions are continuing.
178. The Committee is currently looking at one
aspect of the administration costs of administering this. Is it
effective? One of the difficulties is that out of this Action
Plan you have got quite a lot more to do, have you not?
(Mr Brown) Yes, and one of the things I am putting
to the Chancellor is that I need the money to do it.
179. Is it effectively conditional on the delivery
of those resources, that you drive through the efficiency changes
that, amongst others, are being proposed by the changes to the
regional centres?
(Mr Brown) I am taking a hard look at what is proposed
for regional centres. There are a range of issues involved in
that, if I can, for a minute, take the Committee through them.
Firstly, there is a very good case anyway for examining the future
of the Intervention Board, should it continue as a stand-alone
agency given the direction in which the reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy is going, or should we integrate its work into the paying
work that is currently carried out across the MAFF regional offices?
That is the first question. There is secondly a question of how
we administer the Rural Development Regulation. The Committee
will be aware that I set great store by this, I see it as a growing
instrument of the Common Agricultural Policy. I am very keen for
that to be administered as closely to our partners in these arrangementsmeaning
the farmersas it can. Thirdly, there is a question of my
Department's involvement with the government offices of the regions.
As you know, historically, for perfectly good reasonsI
am not making a political point out of thisthe focus of
the Ministry of Agriculture was wholly rural, because client groups
are in rural communities not urban communities, but with the expanded
role at regional level for Government in general, should not MAFF
be involved in that? I believe we should. Then fourthly there
are the considerations that arise out of the two reportsthe
independent consultants' report and the Red Tape Review Group
reportabout whether we should move to electronic transfer
and revise the way in which we administer the Common Agricultural
Policy schemes, in order, at least in part, to achieve efficiency
savings and also to enhance the service we provide to farmers.
So that is a range of considerations. These are not simple. I
think it is right to consider all four issues together, and clearly,
even having accepted in principle the Red Tape Review reportwhich
I do accept in principlethere are huge questions about
how exactly to go about implementing it. That is not something
we are going to rush at, I have to tell you. I would rather get
it right than get it early.
|