The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Battle,
John
(Leeds, West)
(Lab)
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Ellman,
Mrs. Louise
(Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab/Co-op)
Flint,
Caroline
(Minister of State, Department of
Health)
Gibson,
Dr. Ian
(Norwich, North)
(Lab)
Gidley,
Sandra
(Romsey)
(LD)
Loughton,
Tim
(East Worthing and Shoreham)
(Con)
McIsaac,
Shona
(Cleethorpes)
(Lab)
Pugh,
Dr. John
(Southport)
(LD)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
Wallace,
Mr. Ben
(Lancaster and Wyre)
(Con)
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Wright,
Mr. Anthony
(Great Yarmouth)
(Lab)
Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
European
Standing
Committee
Monday 11
June
2007
[Janet
Anderson
in the
Chair]
Simplification of Legislation on Transport Rates and Food Hygiene
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Department of Health (Caroline Flint):
It is the Governments view that reducing administrative burdens
on business is an important aim, and we wholeheartedly and actively
support it. At the same time, we also support proportionate measures to
protect public health. We believe that such measures already exist in
respect of food hygiene, and we therefore consider that the proposal in
its present form does not strike an appropriate balance between food
safety and burden reduction.
That view has been consistently
echoed by the full range of food industry and enforcement stakeholders,
a number of whom I understand have written to the Committee to
underline their concerns. I received a letter today from Julian Hunt,
the director of communications for the Food and Drink Federation,
supporting our view as
well.
The current
legislation has applied since 1 January 2006. At its heart is the
principle that food businesses are responsible for
producing food safety. They do so by complying with good hygiene
practice and maintaining a planned approach to managing food safety
hazards. That is the legal requirement for food safety management
procedures based on hazard analysis and critical control point, or
HACCP, principles. Controls are to be proportionate to food safety
hazards while avoiding unnecessary burdens on food business operators
and enforcement bodies.
The Government recognise fully
the need to support food businesses in managing food
safety, especially smaller businesses, so many of which supply food to
our consumers. Through the Food Standards Agency, we are helping to
inform and educate about food safety hazards and how they can be
controlled. Looking at the members of this Committee, I see a number in
whose constituencies small businesses have received grants to support
implementation of the current legislation through the safer food,
better business initiative promoted by the FSA, which is providing
support through local authorities to hundreds of thousands of small
businesses to help them to meet legislative requirements. I understand
that that approach has been well received by food businesses and
enforcers, and it provides for the flexibility that the Government feel
is available within the present legislation.
The Commission has said that
the legislations flexibility has not been used widely across
the EU, although we believe that it is being used in this country to
good effect. The proposal therefore aims to minimise burdens further
without reducing levels of public health protection. We support that
aim, but we believe
along with many others that the proposal does not strike the right
balance in exempting businesses from food safety management
requirements on the arbitrary basis of their size. For the proposal to
be acceptable to the UK, it must require all food businesses to control
any hazards to food safety in a managed way. Any proposals for
exemptions should reflect the lower level of risk that some food
handling and business activities may present to food
safety.
Discussions
in the Council working party have indicated that the majority of member
states support us in that analysis. It is right that the impact of
regulatory requirements on businesses, especially small businesses,
should be scrutinised and opportunities to remove unnecessary burdens
taken. It is also right that proportionate controls to protect public
health should not be undermined or dismantled arbitrarily. Clearly, a
balance must be struck and the need to establish that goes right to the
heart of the Governments approach to the proposal that is
reflected in the
motion.
The
Chairman:
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the
Minister. I remind members of the Committee that questions should be
brief and asked one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity
for all hon. Members to ask several
questions.
Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I have not
taken part in a European Standing Committee for a while, so I hope that
I remember the procedure. I have a list of questions to ask the
Minister because there is consensus about the concern that the measure
might be going too far. I endorse the hon. Ladys comments about
wanting to deregulate. It is nice to have European legislation that is
about taking away regulations rather than adding to them. However, that
must be balanced with the safety of food-purveying establishments and
ultimately the safety of our
constituents.
For the
purposes of clarification, I shall to pose a few questions to the
Minister and I wish to start with where we are in the process. I am a
little confused about the timetable of what is coming from where; what
has to come back from us by when and who will ultimately decide what.
The date of 21 May is given in one of the explanatory notes about when
the measure was discussed. Are we behind or ahead of other European
nations in their submissions? The hon. Lady recently sent out a
consultation document in the United Kingdom and it might be useful to
have the
timetable.
The
Chairman:
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that
questions should be brief and asked one at a time. He said that he has
a list of questions. I should be grateful if he would ask them one at a
time so that the Minister has an opportunity to
respond.
Tim
Loughton:
I was not sure whether I would have a repeat
attempt to ask questions. I will be jumping up and down in that case,
so I shall leave matters to the
Minister.
Caroline
Flint:
The UK line is subject to agreement by the European
Parliament Committee. As I said in my opening contribution, we have
already entered into discussion with other member states on our
concerns about the present proposals. On 21 May, after further
discussions at the Council working party of veterinary
experts in public health, there was a blocking minority of member states
in relation to any proposal to change the current legislation. The
presidency said that it would put the dossier to the Committee of
Permanent Representatives in the next two to three
weeks.
The
deadline for ministerial responses to the EP correspondence has been
slightly extended to cope with new devolved administrations and on 25
May there was a further update for stakeholders on the FSA website. At
present, we hope that a round-up letter from the Foreign Secretary
conveying the Governments agreement to our negotiating line
will be available shortly. We had hoped that it might be available
before the scrutiny debate, but we are not at that point as
yet.
Discussion will
then take place. It will show how the proposal will be taken forward
and clarify when it might come before a meeting of the Council. That,
in turn, may lead to clarity over its handling by the European
Parliament. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not out of time
on this issue. The particular proposal has created a buzz of activity
not only in this country, but elsewhere. I am happy to write to him to
give him a clearer outline of matters if I have not done so in my
answer.
Tim
Loughton:
On what empirical evidence are the proposals
based? The legislation is aimed at macro-businesses, as they are
termed, which employ fewer than 10 people. Does the Minister have
evidence and has the Commission produced evidence to show that such
businesses are no more dangerous in terms of food safety than others,
because I suspect that it is other way
round?
Caroline
Flint:
We are not convinced by the evidence of the
Commission in that regard. We believe that aspects of food safety
should be considered on a risk assessment basis that is not of itself
dependent on the size of an organisation. In the United Kingdom, food
produced in establishments that employ fewer than10 employees
was responsible for at least 60 per cent. of the outbreaks of
food-borne disease during January 2000 to March 2005. That particular
sector of the market can present itself in many forms, particularly if
we bear in mind those small units that diversify to provide food
alongside other products. Some newsagents, for example, sell
sandwiches, hot food and takeaways. The market is quite diverse. Some
butchers sell raw meat alongside cooked meats, sandwiches and other
things. The Government think that the matter is important; the sector
is important and we would be concerned if it was removed. As I said in
my opening remarks, we feel that the changes to the original
legislation, which mean that circumstances are based on requirements,
provide adequate flexibility. We have proved that by the way in which
we have gone about the matter in this country. We are hoping to share
our approach with the Commission and others to show European member
states that are overly prescriptive have something to learn from the UK
model.
Dr.
Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): I have two
questions. Somewhere between Ipswich and Stowmarket
this morningone has a lot of time on the train from Norwich to
London these days because of fatalities or slow trainsI read
the word morganisation. I cannot find the word in the
document now, but will the Minister tell me what it means? I have never
before seen the word
but I saw it in the document and I would be grateful if she could define
itI am always interested to learn new
words.
The major point that I wanted
to make concerns the safer food better business model referred to in
annex B. The FSA has developed SFBB packs for Chinese and Indian
cuisines, which will be launched shortly. There are many other cuisines
besides Chinese and Indian. What is being done about developing packs
and information for suppliers of those
foods?
Caroline
Flint:
I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on the term
morganisation. Should I be given any information on it
in the Committee, I shall pass it on in my closing remarks.
I take my hon. Friends
point about the identification of packs that focus on Chinese and
Indian food and I shall make sure that his comments are passed on to
the FSA to see whether there are other types of cuisine, such as Thai,
that could be covered. We are fortunate to live in a country in which
we have access to the foods of the world. There is no reason why those
foods cannot be provided and safely enjoyed, as millions of us do every
day.
The
initiative has been constructively received by firms, local authorities
and trade associations as one of the ways in which we can approach the
matter proportionately, while being mindful of the safety of the public
in relation to public health concerns about
food.
Tim
Loughton:
If small businesses of fewer than10
employees are exempt from the HACCP regulations, does the Minister
think that they will be under less of an obligation to train their
staff in food safety management? Is she satisfied that there are other
safeguards in place?
Caroline
Flint:
As far as I am aware, there would still
be a requirement on the firms to which the hon.
Gentleman referred to have attention to hygiene. I understand that
that, in and of itself, is not affected by the measures. However, the
responsibility of the businesses to look at the potential hazards of
introducing food delivery and services is affected. That is slightly
different from approaching the matter from a food hygiene point of
view. The concern is that, although there should be flexibility, an
arbitrary slicing at 10 employees is simply a number-crunching
exercise, and not about food safety or the responsibility of businesses
to think carefully about the consequences, for
example, of selling both raw and cooked meats. Firms should think about
how such services can be delivered while reducing hazards to public
health. That is the worry. It does not mean that there are no other
aspects of responsibility for food hygiene to which businesses must
attend. We feel that the message that is being sent out is
disproportionate and, potentially, very
dangerous.
Mr.
Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): What representations did
the Minister receive from small businesses regarding the burden of
HACCP regulations before the Commission introduced its
proposals?
Caroline
Flint:
Many stakeholders have expressed serious concern,
primarily through the Food Standards Agency, that food safety would be
compromised by this proposal, and that moving away from a risk-based
approach to one based on business size could not be justified on public
health grounds. That view came from the enforcement
communitylocal authorities and environmental health
officersand was endorsed by the Federation of Small Businesses,
the Food and Drink Federation and the British Retail
Consortium.
As
far as I am aware, the proposal came out of left field. I do not think
that people expected it, which is why it has created such a flurry of
activity and attention. The legislation that we are implementing has
not been around long, and we hoped that before
tweaking it we could get the present legislation right. For example,
the Food and Drink Federation, the British Hospitality Association, the
British Retail Consortium, the National Farmers Union, Dairy UK, the
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Which? and Foodaware, the
consumers food group, have also made their point collectively:
that while they recognise the need for a flexible approach to the HACCP
for small businesses, they believe that sufficient flexibility was
negotiated by the Food Standards Agency and is therefore already
incorporated within current EU hygiene
legislation.
The Forum
of Private Businesss views were sought in April this year and
said:
The
current proposal we feel is fatally flawed in that it appears to remove
the necessity for risk assessment, the size criterion is unacceptable
and is impracticable in reality. It would lead to so much confusion
among both enforcers and business that standards of hygiene could be
compromised.
I hope that
that sufficiently answers the hon. Gentlemans
question.
Dr.
Gibson:
Has the Minister considered the episode of bird
flu when there was transmission from Hungary by some mechanism or
mechanisms unknown? Are we loosening the regulations to the extent that
anything can be transported without really knowing whether there is an
inherent danger? There is still a danger of bird flu and animal viruses
being moved from one part of the world, particularly Europe in this
case, to this country. Is that being considered in terms of loosening
the
regulations?
Caroline
Flint:
I do not think that the motion is directly linked
to the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. However, as we saw in the
incident at Bernard Matthews not so long ago, there was a lot of
discussion about the transference of poultry products across the
European Union. I do not think that the regulations are pertinent to
that, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about that and how we
are working with DEFRA and others throughout the European Union to
examine the whole issue of bird flu and its transference, the
transportation of live poultry and so on, and its potential impact. We
must also be mindful of the fact that we cannot control wild birds, and
that is why we must have mechanisms to tackle the
problem.
Mr.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): I had the dubious
pleasure of studying directive 93/43 when I was a Member of the
Scottish Parliament, and the
subsequent regulations for both the Food Standards Agency Scotland and
the English Food Standards Agency, so I was delighted when this
document crossed my
desk.
Given that the
regulations from the Food Standards Agency already
affect UK-based businesses, and will continue to do so even if the
directive were abolishedit is secondary legislation set up by
the Food Standards Agencyis the Minister saying that the only
threat to food hygiene would come from imports from other European
countries food processors if they did not have such a stringent
domestic regime in place? My understanding is that even if we abolished
the regulation, we have domestic regulations in place that would
protect food standards, so abolition would affect only
imports.
Caroline
Flint:
I am not suggesting that we abolish the
current legislation. We are talking about adding to the existing
legislation a caveat that removes responsibility for those particular
hazard control procedures from businesses that employ fewer than 10
people. There are sound reasons for ensuring that, as far as possible,
we encourage a proportionate but healthy approach to
food management and services across the European
Union and for trying to create a baseline of standards; our own people
go on holiday and work in such countries.
I am not quite sure whether I
have understood the hon. Gentlemans question correctly, but we
are arguing against the Commissions proposal, which we feel is
unnecessary in terms of the legislation that we have currently signed
up to on the books. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again
if I have not quite understood his
question.
Mr.
Wallace:
In my reading, the proposal from the European
Commission is to make businesses of a certain size exempt from article
3(2) of directive 93/43. That is to exempt them from a European
directive, not from UK secondary legislation that is in place and
enforced by the FSA. Therefore, should the exemption still go ahead at
the EU level? Our regulations would still be in place. Therefore, the
only threat to British consumers would come from imports from a
European country that does not have such strict food standards
legislation domestically. Is that the understanding and, if so, are
there any particular countries that we should be concerned
about?
Caroline
Flint:
My understanding is that it would apply to
all EU small businesses, selling mainly direct to consumers. That is
why the issue is so important. It would affect across the
piece.
Tim
Loughton:
Have the proposals come in isolation? Does the
Minister think that the legislation will pave the way for the
Commission to make more changes to food safety
regulations?
Caroline
Flint:
The proposals come from a legitimate course of
action, in which we tried to fast-track some proposalsnot just
in the area of foodto minimise unnecessary burdens on
businesses. That was just one idea out of 10 suggestions, but it is the
one we are discussing today in terms of food hygiene. We do not have a
problem with the other proposals, including the one on transport. Some
of the suggestions in those areas made sense, such as avoiding document
duplication. That is not the debate today, but I just wanted to
highlight one example out of the
10 proposals. It is this proposal that concerns the Department of
Health, the FSA and others, because we do not feel that it will achieve
what the Commission wants. We have other voices on our side, not only
in this country but across Europe. That is what I understand is the
case for this particular suggestion. It is a package of 10 proposals
aimed at better regulation and reducing burdens on
business.
Mr.
Wilson:
What evidence does the Minister have that the
Commissions proposal to exempt small businesses would lead to
an increase in food-borne illnesses?
Caroline
Flint:
I informed the Committee earlier the extent
to which smaller businesses are responsible for the number of
food-borne illnesses. I think that I mentioned that something like 60
per cent. of the outbreaks of food-borne disease during January 2000 to
March 2005 came from establishments employing fewer than 10 workers.
They came from that sector of the market. Again, it
is not just the Department of Health or the Government, but many other
stakeholders who are very concerned about the arbitrary cut-off point
at 10 employees. What happens to establishments that have 11 or 12
employees? That was one of the points made by the Forum of Private
Business. We are concerned about the message that it sends out about
having a cut-off point based on size, rather than a risk
assessment.
Organisations
employing fewer than 10 employees may be safe because of the nature of
their business and organisation. A local authority
might feel that such an organisation needs little attention
because of established practices over a number of years, but it might
think that other organisations with fewer than 10 employees, and
organisations with many more, need a rather more hands-on approach in
respect of how they are running their business. That is where the risk
assessment is important. There needs to be some room for manoeuvre in
respect of how that is done, and how flexibly it is done, for local
authorities and their enforcement agencies to use their professionalism
in an appropriately proportionate
way.
Tim
Loughton:
The seven HACCP principles in annexe A strike me
as rather nefarious. I was slightly surprised by that. Just to give an
example, the first principle
is,
Identifying
any hazards that must be prevented, eliminated or reduced to acceptable
levels.
That could mean
leaving the fridge door open for meat products. The second principle
is,
Identifying
the critical control points at the step or steps which control is
essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard or to reduce it to
acceptable levels.
That
could be remembering to close the fridge door. The
third,
Establishing
critical limits at critical control points which separate acceptability
from unacceptability for the prevention, elimination or reduction of
identified
hazards,
could mean
putting a notice up, saying Dont forget to close the
fridge door. Am I being overly simplistic? Are these principles
actually doing the job for which they are designed or has some
bureaucrat just invented them, with everybody going through the motions
even though the principles are not serving a
purpose?
Caroline
Flint:
That is why the work was done with
the FSA to produce the packs to support smaller
businesses and to try to remove possible misinterpretation of the
principles. Also, I understand that flexibility was built into the
original legislation, with the FSAs negotiating position being
that activity should be based on principles regarding health and safety
hazards in relation to food. The packs produced by the FSA, and the
grants that it is providing to a number of local authorities to engage
particularly with their small business sector, in its many forms, are
intended to ensure that there is understanding about flexibility.
Common sense should apply. Sometimes, however, the work cannot be done
by producing documents and it has to be a combination of
straightforward guidance and hands-on support locally by the relevant
agencies.
I
agree that there needs to be a simple, straightforward interpretation.
That is what the FSA has been doing, through its work with local
authorities. I understand that the feedback from the industry on this
matter has, to all intents and purposes, been positive. That is why
there is no reason for any changes at this
time.
Mr.
Wallace:
Further to the questions I have asked
the Minister, the £68 million that is quoted
as a potential saving to small businesses, should they be exempt, is
not broken down sufficiently for us to say what proportion of that sum
comprises an extra burden from FSA regulations and the basic
requirement of the directive. As is so often the case, the directive is
fairly objective based and deals with what to achieve, rather than with
prescriptive measures. Will the Minister enter into the spirit of
trying to reduce the burden on small business and commit herself to
finding out whether FSA regulations on small business are a bit too
excessive and, perhaps, bring them down in line with the aims of the
directive?
Caroline
Flint:
The FSA, particularly over the past year, has been
in discussions with our better regulation unit to look at different
aspects of its work and how we can ensure that, although it is tackling
a huge public concern about food safety in this country, the actions
taken are proportionate and are meaningful to different sectors, no
matter how small or large. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman
with more detailed information about how the FSA is taking that work
forward and will follow up, if there is the opportunity, on any issues
to do with costs on business from activities relating to the
FSA.
The
Chairman:
If no more hon. Members wish to ask questions,
we will now proceed to the debate on the
motion.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 7371/07 and
Addenda 1-4, Draft Regulation amending Regulation No. 11 concerning the
abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions in
implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European
Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs; and supports
the Government's view that attempts to reduce administrative burdens on
food businesses are to be welcomed, but should not compromise public
health protection.[Caroline
Flint.]
Question
put and agreed
to.
Committee
rose at one minute to Five
oclock.