6 Local Authorities
30. As described above, local authorities, in their
capacity as food authorities, are responsible for closing shellfish
beds, although they do so on the recommendation of the Food Standards
Agency.[42] Local authorities
have raised concerns about the way that responsibilities for shellfish
complying with legislation are split between them and the FSA.[43]
In particular they are concerned that although food authorities
have no influence on the testing scheme, because they implement
closures they are legally accountable for the choices made.[44]
Indeed, six local authorities who submitted evidence to the Committee
believe that they are likely to be the subject of a judicial review
brought by some in the shellfish industry who contest the grounds
for closing the beds.[45]
It is important that the respective roles of the Food Standards
Agency and food authorities are clarified. The Government should
require the FSA to explain fully, and in public, the reasons behind
its decisions in respect of closures.
31. The FSA says that it meets the costs of the statutory
monitoring programme.[46]
However the local authorities say that the problem of atypical
results has become a "major drain on resources",[47]
and that they receive no additional funding to fulfil their responsibilities
in this area.[48] They
say that sampling is expensive, as is the enforcement of closures
and dissemination of information about the problem. In addition,
the dispute over the cause of the atypical response has led local
authorities to appoint their own legal and scientific advisors.[49]
The Government should examine the way that food authorities
are funded to carry out their work. All the costs of the statutory
shellfish toxin monitoring programme should be met by the FSA.
42 Ev 33 Back
43
Ev 76, Ev 80 Back
44
Ev 80 Back
45
Ev 76, Ev 78 Back
46
Ev 33 Back
47
Ev 80 Back
48
Ev 63 Back
49
Ev 64, Ev 72 Back
|
