Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-140)
14 MAY 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MS MANDY
BAILEY
Q120 Mr Mitchell: What will be the
extra costs involved for the food processing industry? Is it going
to be a substantial extra cost for them?
Mr Morley: Do we have the assessment?
Ms Bailey: We can let you have
that information.
Mr Morley: It is difficult. Bear
in mind that, of course, the food industry does have to get rid
of waste products.
Q121 Mr Mitchell: Already?
Mr Morley: Already. Many of them
are doing it in a way which complies with these Regulations. I
would not like to say there would be no costs but I am not altogether
certain that the costs are going to be dramatic.
Q122 Mr Wiggin: What would the circumstances
be that you touched on earlier? If you do not know, would you
write to the Committee?
Mr Morley: I think I would prefer
to write to the Committee really.
Q123 Mr Mitchell: So you do not anticipate
any substantial burdens on the Grimsby food processing industry?
Mr Morley: I would suspect not
in relation to what they do. In fact, I might also say in relation
to the way that these Regulations are envisaged, I come back to
the point that it is envisaged that there be a framework for the
safe and controlled disposal of waste food products which could
be a risk, but it is a bit more than that because a lot of the
traditional end use of waste food, particularly in terms of fertilizers
and animal feeds, for example, over the years has been prohibited
for very good reasons in relation to disease risk and disease
control. It may well be that once you have a secure framework
Regulation for disposal that you can start to look at ways that
you can get some added value again from waste food products: composting,
various manufacturing processes, non-animal feed processes where
you can get some return on waste proteins and waste food, which
I am keen to see. There is biogas digestion, for example, all
sorts of different opportunities within a secure framework. I
do not think we should lose sight of the fact that there are potential
benefits from this framework both now and for the future.
Q124 Mr Mitchell: Just one more local
question and a more general one. The clarification sent out by
DEFRA on the Regulation says that "only animal material trapped
at the primary stage of the treatment of waste water by a screen
or mesh of no more than 6mm must be treated as an animal by-product".
We both know that the power generation plants on the Humber trap
enormous amounts of fish and, indeed, there is a constant complaint
that they are killing fish in the Humber. What is going to happen
to them?
Mr Morley: On a separate issue,
you are quite right about the concern of the potential impact
particularly on juvenile fish in spawning areas, of which the
Humber is one. We are already talking to power companies about
that, about methods to actually reduce that particular by-catch
by such things as bubble screens, for example. It is an issue
that we do take seriously.
Q125 Mr Mitchell: I am delighted
to hear that. Just one more thing. You mentioned that DEFRA had
found five million to add to the programme from its cupboard.
Mr Morley: Up to.
Q126 Mr Mitchell: Up to five million.
I am just wondering what these back pockets or cupboards in DEFRA
are like because you scratched around and you found six million
for the fishing industry which you said was the absolute end and
there was nothing left, the cupboard was bare, but now you have
got five more million in it possibly. What are these cupboards
like?
Mr Morley: In my experience it
is always a very painful experience trying to get anything out
of them.
Q127 Paddy Tipping: You talked about
composting a moment ago. They are covered by the Regulation, are
they not?
Mr Morley: Yes, they are. For
waste food. Green composting is not affected.
Q128 Paddy Tipping: Sure. You talked
about a proportionate approach to the Regulation. There is a feeling
that the risk assessments that you are taking as applied to composting
are far too rigorous.
Mr Morley: There was originally.
When we talked to the composting industry they raised a number
of points with us about what they thought were quite restrictive
regulations that made it very difficult for them to operate. I
am pretty sure that we have resolved their concerns, have we not?
Ms Bailey: Yes, we have resolved
most of their concerns. I do not think the problem was the risk
assessment per se, it was the way in which that was translated
into requirements in the draft Statutory Instrument. Certainly
one of the major issues was around separation of clean and dirty
areas and we have now introduced a HACCP based approach to that
so that it can be assessed on an individual site on a risk controlled
basis. Hopefully most of the problems that they had will be overcome
after the consultation following the draft Statutory Instrument.
Q129 Paddy Tipping: One of the interesting
things is that in a sense the State Veterinary Service is going
to police this, they are going to be involved in this, but what
do they know really about composting? They know a lot about animals
but I suspect that they do not know a lot about composting.
Mr Morley: What they know about
is pathogens. The only concern about composting is that the composting
is managed in such a way that the internal temperature reaches
one that will destroy pathogens, which if my memory serves me
right is about 60 degrees centigrade, and also that the composting
is maintained for a period long enough as well to ensure that
pathogens are destroyed. It is a fairly simple kind of approach,
just to make sure it is being complied with. Of course, a lot
of the commercial composters know this very well.
Q130 Paddy Tipping: You are confident
that you have got the balance right with disease prevention and
practical controls?
Mr Morley: Yes. I have actually
been to look at some composting.
Q131 Paddy Tipping: Join the club.
Fascinating.
Mr Morley: And thrust my hand
into the pile just to check the temperature and it seemed pretty
hot to me, I have to say.
Mr Wiggin: A minister using his head!
Q132 Paddy Tipping: And you are still
in possession of both hands.
Mr Morley: That is right.
Q133 Paddy Tipping: The final thing
I want to mention is biodigestion which is a new technology.
Mr Morley: It is a new technology.
Q134 Paddy Tipping: How do the Regulations
fit with this because I understood that they were outside the
Regulations?
Mr Morley: Currently they are,
yes.
Q135 Paddy Tipping: What is happening
there?
Mr Morley: We have asked the Commission
for an opinion on biodigestion. The issue really is whether it
is safe and whether it does deal with any kind of dangerous pathogens
and whether it can be applied properly. This is not the biogas,
this is the biodigestion on-farm, and Members have drawn this
to my attention and we have contacted the Commission.
Ms Bailey: The Scientific Steering
Committee has recently evaluated six alternative disposal methods.
In fact, seven in total but in one opinion they made comments
on six disposal methods that are being put forward. They also
had a separate opinion on high pressure alkaline hydrolysis, which
is also a kind of digestion. I am afraid that biodigestion as
such was not deemed within those six opinions to actually fulfil
the criteria that they required. The alkaline hydrolysis one is
safe for the lower risk material in which there is no TSE risk.
That is just a scientific opinion so as yet the Commission will
need to approve that within the Regulations.
Q136 Paddy Tipping: Just to clarify,
this is a Scientific Committee of the Commission?
Ms Bailey: Yes.
Q137 Mr Lazarowicz: The Department
has highlighted a number of areas where there would be teething
problems and I think one of the areas that was identified was
that of shellfish. I think in particular the Department advised
the local authority co-ordinators that they should tell their
members to take a proportionate approach in the case of shellfish
producers because of the difficulty that they might have in finding
outlets for shellfish waste. Can you tell the Committee when the
Department began discussing the implications of the Regulation
on shellfish producers and what advice the Department has given
to the industry about disposing of shellfish waste under the new
Regulations?
Mr Morley: We have been discussing
it.
Ms Bailey: It comes under the
fish side of DEFRA which is setting up a meeting with people.
The specific issue that you referred to in that letter arose because
there were some shellfish producers who were sending their empty
shells to landfill and the collectors of those had said that they
would not be able to collect them after 1 May which was creating
the problem, which was why we wrote to the enforcement authorities
about that particular issue. We are going to meet the people who
are affected, their industry representatives, to discuss the options
for disposal.
Q138 Mr Lazarowicz: How long do you
expect this particular special arrangement to continue?
Ms Bailey: For quite a short period.
Clearly we want to encourage compliance as soon as possible in
all of these areas.
Q139 Mr Lazarowicz: If I can turn
from that particular case to a wider issue. It has been suggested
that the Department's approach to the Regulation was primarily
seen in terms of disposing of fallen stock and it was only later
in the day that the issue of the impact on food retail and waste
disposal sectors came into the equation. Are you satisfied, and
can you satisfy the Committee, that the different divisions of
the Department did work together to ensure that there was a seamless
approach to how the UK's position was developed as far as negotiations
with Brussels were concerned? Were the interests of all of the
stakeholders taken into account by the Department?
Mr Morley: In my view they were.
I can only repeat that this particular Order is four years in
discussion. In relation to waste food, a lot of uncooked meat
products came under the 1999 Order and a very large number of
food businesses have been complying with that, which is exactly
the same as this, since 1999. I know there are some who have not
been but they should have been, frankly.
Chairman: Minister, most of this hinges
really upon getting your signatures. In the event of that happening
no doubt you would make an announcement at the earliest stage
and we could look at what the alternatives are in the event of
this happening. Or if you find that there is sufficient demand
to be able to go ahead with the scheme then clearly we will be
interested in seeing how it works out and how it develops. We
may well want to return to this, as we are accustomed to, to see
how the practice is behaving. Thank you very much indeed for coming
to us today. As always, a" la prochaine. Sausages,
I think, I am not sure whether they raise a constitutional issue.
Diana Organ: Typical Tory, he offers
it and then takes it away with him.
Q140 Chairman: No, he has left them.
You will note, however, that Mr Mitchell suggested that as he
was supperless your Elliot Morleyesque instincts may impel you
to offer them to Mr Mitchell.
Mr Morley: I would be delighted
to, Chairman.
Chairman: And as he volunteered he can
hardly refuse them, can he? Thank you very much indeed.
| 
