Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill

House of Commons, 22 July 1999.

LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 3, line 35, after 'matters', insert ', including the country of origin of all major ingredients,'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

As a relatively new Member of the House, I feel as if I have just been present at a family row, in which some family members who were drawn into the discussion were never really implicated in the first place. I want to place on the record the fact that there was never any intention on the part of members of the Standing Committee, who worked in the most constructive atmosphere with the Government on the Bill, to imply that the guillotine had anything to do with the conduct of the Committee. I want to place on the record also a tribute to the work of the members of the Special Select Committee. It was the quality of their work that enabled our deliberations in Committee to be conducted in an extremely constructive and cordial manner. I reiterate that I was not criticising the extent of the modification of the original draft Bill, but pointing out that, because of the extent of the modification, the Bill needed careful and considered scrutiny in the Standing Committee. I re-emphasise that that was not criticism of the modification per se. Obviously, we are disappointed that the time for Report stage has been limited. For tactical reasons, some things are best kept to be raised on Report instead of being debated—and perhaps rejected—in Committee. The eighth group of amendments on today's selection list is just one example of something new, which has not yet been thoroughly debated, that we wanted to keep for Report. I am anxious in case, in the time available, we do not manage to reach the important subject of appeals procedure. As we said several times in Committee, we are keen for the new Food Standards Agency to be a success. That success will be measured by the confidence that producers, retailers and, above all, consumers, have in the information and advice that emanates from it. We have amended the original amendment that we tabled in Committee, which may have created a misapprehension that we sought to usurp local authorities' role in enforcing the present labelling rules. That was never our intent, and I hope that the new clause makes it perfectly clear that we recognise the very important role that local authorities play in enforcing labelling rules. However, our concern is about the present labelling rules. Fundamentally, the new clause would address the weakness in the present rules that govern labelling. An important opportunity will be missed if the Food Standards Agency does not, once and for all, crack the problem of the weakness in the present arrangements for food labelling in this country. The duty of labelling, although mentioned in the explanatory notes, does not appear in the Bill. We do not intend, in this guillotined discussion of the new clause and the subject, to revisit arguments that took place in Committee. I know that hon. Members diligently read the Hansard of the proceedings of the House and of Committee. I have tried very hard to bring some fresh points to the discussion of the very important issue of food labelling. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, an extract was printed from Sue Dibb's book, "What the label doesn't tell you", which makes cautionary reading for the consumer. It lists a series of meaningless or misleading terms that are currently used in the labelling of food. For example, what are called "low fat sausages" may contain less fat than sausages not labelled "low fat" but are not necessarily low in fat. The terms "lean" or "extra lean", often used in relation to meats, can mean whatever one wants. They are essentially meaningless.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I am spurred by the motive force of self-interest. As a keen consumer of beef, and specifically of minced beef, my ears pricked up when my hon. Friend referred to "lean" and "extra lean". That is a source of concern to me because I often buy "extra lean" minced beef, thinking that I am being thoroughly healthy in the process. Is my hon. Friend seeking to disabuse me of that hope?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Obviously, we sincerely hope that, in future, it will be the role and responsibility of the Food Standards Agency to define precisely what "lean" and "extra lean" mean. Some retailers supplement the information on the label by stating the percentage of fat, but there is no clearly defined standard for what is meant by "lean" or "extra lean". In case my hon. Friend should be tempted to try other cuts of meat, they, too, suffer from a similar problem, because I should tell him that the word "trimmed" has no specific definition either. Another example is to be found on pre-packed, carton-packed fruit juices. The term "pure juice" is often used. In fact, that applies to concentrated fruit juice which has been shipped, diluted and heat treated. That is distinct from the term "juice drink", a product which contains as little as 5 per cent. juice. These terms are misleading, but not always after the consumer has tasted the product. At that stage some of the differences become much more apparent. At the time of purchase, however, things are a little unclear. Another example of a misleading product might affect the consumption patterns of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The term "smoked bacon" would probably lead hon. Members to envisage a traditional smoke-house for the production of rashers of bacon to be consumed at breakfast. I regret to inform the House that in many instances the smoked flavour is an added solution in the production process. Another misleading term is "light beer". We often think of "light" in terms of a reduced calorie product. In this instance, however, it means lighter in colour, and has nothing to do with alcohol or taste. There is misleading labelling of fruits. For example, the term "strawberry flavour" has nothing to do with strawberries. It may be a completely artificial flavouring. However, the term "strawberry flavoured"—everything is in the "ed" at the end—makes all the difference. It means that the flavouring has come from real strawberries.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

The hon. Lady is talking about misnomers, and I notice that the new clause includes the term "genetically-modified". Is that not a misnomer? We have been genetically modifying food crops for years and years. Indeed, we eat lots of foreign DNA every day. Whenever we have an apple we eat some DNA. Is there not a dreadful misnomer in the new clause?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I shall be talking at length about genetic modification and labelling. The Food Standards Agency could begin by providing a proper definition of genetic modification. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point. I learned a thing or two from the guide to misleading labelling. New to me was the fact that bottled water that is labelled "spring water" could be tap water. Only bottles that are labelled "mineral water" strictly contain mineral water from a source as defined by the law. I have taken some of the time of the House by reading into the record some examples of present problems with labelling. I have done so because it is my sincere wish that the FSA will get to grips with precisely these misleading terms as soon as the provisions come into force. We might think quite lightheartedly of examples of foods and beverages that we have known and consumed, and perhaps we have learned to live with some misleading terms. However, the extent of misleading labelling may have serious consequences. I am sure that all hon. Members would join with me in extending condolences to the family of Ross Baillie. He suffered from a nut allergy and was unaware, on consuming a packet of coronation chicken sandwiches, that that product contained the very ingredient to which, regrettably, he was fatally allergic. There is a serious side to misleading labelling. The new clause highlights the need to specify the country of origin of each major ingredient and the system of production used. As a result of food scares, consumers have become anxious about methods of production used. Present labelling is unhelpful in that respect. I shall cite the example of eggs, a product that has been at the centre of controversy in the past. The consumer can be easily confused. Upon entering a supermarket, he or she will find an array of egg boxes on the shelves, which can be labelled in a variety of different ways. For example, boxes may be labelled "farm fresh eggs". The consumer may be led to think that these eggs have been produced in a free-range style. However, farm fresh eggs can be laid by battery hens. The same is true of the term "country fresh eggs". Those also can be laid by battery hens. Barn eggs are laid by hens that are not caged, but may well still be enclosed in a barn. Only the term "free range eggs" provides an assurance that the hens have continuous access to outdoors. How the chickens are kept matters to many consumers. They believe that that may affect the safety of the product and/or the welfare of the bird. Unless they go shopping with a glossary of the terms used to label food, consumers may easily think that they have bought a product from a production system that is entirely different from the reality.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

I have seen the term "organic eggs". Can the hon. Lady help me by defining an organic egg?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The term "organic" is much more precisely defined. Organic producers in agriculture have a vested interest in making sure that the term is used strictly, only in relation to organic means of production, and as the House knows, they are extremely concerned when there is any possibility that their organic methods of production may have been contaminated. Like the term "mineral water", "organic" is one of the terms used in the labelling of food products in which the consumer has learned to have more confidence. However, that confidence can be sustained only if the organic nature of the production is truly protected. British food producers and retailers have had to pay dearly for past food crises. The Minister said in Committee that producers in this country have had to be doubly or trebly careful about their production methods in order to restore confidence in British produce. It is not difficult to understand producers' desire for the word "British" on a food product label to be associated in the consumer's mind with a premium product, in which the consumer can have more confidence than in an imported product, whose method of production may not have been as strictly controlled as in this country. The industry may reasonably expect careful production to be a plus point attributed to British food, yet the labelling of country of origin remains elusive. Beef labelling is a case in which some progress has been made. The beef industry particularly has had to go the extra mile to restore confidence in its product. It has done so to good effect, leading to restored levels of beef consumption. It is permissible for the country of origin of beef to be stated on the label. It remains unclear to members of the Standing Committee why that does not apply to pigmeat, sheepmeat and poultry produced in Britain. Consumers want to see the country of origin on the label of the meat that they purchase, for good reason—their confidence in the safety and public health aspects of the domestic product. Consumers have a right to such information in order to make an informed choice. That is the essence of clause 7. Concern about the system of production has become more acute in the case of imported produce. As a result of the unfortunate British experience of food scares, we have stricter controls on our methods of production than some of the countries from which we import food. The use of prophylactic antibiotics, which has been banned in production systems in this country, is still allowed in some countries from which we import meat. Yet the consumer has no way of knowing whether a product comes from a domestic source, where the restrictions are tighter, or has been imported. There is growing concern that antibiotic resistance in humans may be linked to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in rearing animals. That is undoubtedly why limitations have been imposed in Britain. The consumer rightly does not wish to expose himself or herself to that risk if at all possible. But under the present labelling rules it is not possible for the consumer to determine whether a product has been imported. The strongest argument against labelling food with the country of origin is that it would lead to protectionism. But, in truth, the consumer simply wants to know where his or her food has come from to protect public health. The failure to label food by country of origin will make the agency's role of advising the public all the more difficult in the event of a foreign food scare. Take the recent example of products from Belgium which may have been contaminated with dioxin. Initially, the Ministry advised consumers that there had been no imports of poultry and eggs from Belgium which may have been contaminated—only to be corrected, rather embarrassingly, by the supermarkets, which said that some might have come in. That very week I showed my nanny the problem. A pack of chicken breasts that she had purchased from the local supermarket had no clue as to their origin. There might have been a label on the shelf that made it clear that they had come from British hens, but a few days on, and to me as a secondary consumer, there was no way of knowing from where the products had come. The advice at the time from the Ministry was, "When in doubt, bin it", so bin it we did.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I am interested to hear an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman advocate the advance of the nanny state. That is quite unusual. Given the deficiencies that the hon. Lady is pointing out in labelling legislation, will she remind us of its history?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood my reference to my nanny. I was obviously talking about an employee of my own. Far from being an advocate of the nanny state, I am saying that the whole point of the clause is to provide information to ensure that the consumer can make a well-informed decision. It is not a question of taking a decision on behalf of the consumer, but allowing the consumer to decide. That is our strongest argument for ensuring that some misleading labelling terms are corrected. With the vast growth in the range, quality and sophistication of food retail products, the need for labelling has become all the more imperative.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

Does the hon. Lady agree that, where the product in question comes from outside the EU, within which we are assured that all the rules and regulations are enforced in an equal and even-handed way as compared with the United Kingdom, there is perhaps an even greater need for it to be labelled. For example, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, it is possible that the chicken that she binned came from Thailand.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am coming to chicken from Thailand next. My hon. Friend reads my mind. But before we leave the EU, there is a problem in relation to labelling a product with its country of origin, even within the EU. For example, the term "made in Italy" can be misleading. That term means that Italy was the last place where the product underwent substantial change. For example, a jar of olives may be labelled "Made in Italy", but the olives could have been grown in north Africa and the finished product assembled in Italy. A little closer to home, anticipating this morning that I might have to forgo a regular lunchtime refreshment because of the modernised hours during which the House sits on Thursdays, I sought a product that would be easy and convenient to eat. I purchased a Cornish pasty, but I was dismayed to find that all the label told me was that the product had been produced in the United Kingdom. I could not be sure that the beef in the product had not been imported and, as a consumer, I have concerns about the relative safety of imported beef.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The hon. Lady has introduced the magnificent Cornish pasty to the debate.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

The oggie.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Cornish oggie, as my hon. Friend says. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that products described as Cornish or Yorkshire should be made in or derived from that place, otherwise they would not be legitimate?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely essential to preserve the integrity of national and regional products.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Although I should hate to disagree with her and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), and although I agree entirely that there has to be food integrity, the Cornish pasty is but one example of a food that might not necessarily require a geographical description. Any piece of pastry wrapped round meat of a certain type might be described as a Cornish pasty, which is a generic rather than a geographically based food.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

My right hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention. He spent many hours with us in Committee and referred to many examples of the way in which the integrity of traditional products should be preserved by accurate labelling. Chicken Kiev is another classic example of a modern convenience food. Obviously, its main ingredient is chicken. Very often, the harassed housewife, who combines work and running her home, will aim to buy precisely such a convenience product at the local supermarket. The label may say, "Made in Britain", but she may be completely unaware that the chicken may have been imported from Thailand. Chicken production in Thailand is not subject to the same strict regulations as poultrymeat production in this country. Indeed, substances that are banned from use in poultrymeat production in this country are used in Thailand. When such simple examples are given to ordinary consumers, they lose faith in the term "Made in Britain" because they cannot read the label with any confidence and reassure themselves that they are protected from a risk that they have read or heard about. They cannot be sure that reading the label on a product will enable them to take the preventive measures necessary to minimise the risks to themselves. The consumer can be easily misled in that way. Numerous examples were referred to in Committee and one of the most notable was the fact that it is possible to import live animals to this country. The Minister is aware that French pigs are imported to Suffolk and turned into bacon labelled "British". The hon. Gentleman expressed his intention to clamp down on such misleading labelling, but that example shows that the food labelling regulations are seriously lacking. 5.30 pm The concern about misleading labelling and the future role of the Foods Standards Agency reaches a topical and controversial point when we come to the labelling of genetically modified material in food. I understand that today's Food Commission report draws attention to the risk of labelling foods "GM free" while accepting a variable tolerance level for some genetically modified ingredients. That will do nothing to help to inspire consumer confidence in foods that are produced with that new technology. It may be every bit as bad as the previous problem-now stamped on by the Government—of using the catch-all, throwaway disclaimer, "This product may contain genetically modified material" when, often, in practice, it did not. I am pleased that the Government have clamped down on the easy disclaimer route for the labelling of food, but they may run into another problem if the term "GM free" is loosely used. The mere fact that there is discussion of what would be a tolerable level of genetically modified ingredients within any food product—it was reported in yesterday's edition of the Evening Standard—is a warning to the consumer already to have doubts about the phrase "GM free". The consumer cannot be sure that, in reality, the food is as it is described. The supermarket chain Sainsbury's says that it is working with a tolerance level for GM ingredients of 0.1 per cent., but, according to press reports, the European Union is preparing to allow food to be labelled "GM free" even if as much as 3 per cent. of its contents are GMO derived. Some retailers claim they will require zero tolerance; others say that they will simply aim at that. The truth is that, if we want to eat GM-free food, it will be remarkably difficult to be sure. The British Retail Consortium has said that it will approach the matter on a de minimis basis, under which ingredients that are present in minute quantities—0.01 per cent. of the total—do not need to be acknowledged. The Food Standards Agency is to be set up as a regulatory authority for GM food. There is an immediate and urgent task: to get to grips with the labelling of GM food. That is why we call for that to be made explicit in the Bill. Incidentally, where does it leave the powers and influence of the Food Standards Agency when the Welsh Assembly is already addressing the issue of the genetic modification and the necessary powers to manage its own control and labelling? We discussed at length the implications of devolution for the Food Standards Agency. I have no wish to reiterate the debate in Standing Committee, but that precise example shows that our concerns about different standards arising in the United Kingdom are at risk of becoming a reality. We welcomed the Minister's confirmation in Committee that the Food Standards Agency would have the power to act throughout the United Kingdom, without intrusive Government intervention, or its authority being weakened by the piecemeal, devolutionist thrust of the Bill. That final practical example, however, presents a good case for coming back to the question of how to resolve the problems involving the devolved relationship and the Foods Standards Agency. I impress on the House how great the demand is for accurate food labelling to be achieved once and for all. Consumers have a right to be accurately informed about the content, origin and method of production of the food that they eat. I draw the Minister's attention to an article on the front page of last week's edition of the Farmers Guardian, which reports that its "Let's have it labelled" campaign has won massive support throughout the farming industry, with more than 5,000 signatures collected at agricultural shows throughout the country. At one show alone, the great Yorkshire show, 500 signatures were collected. They report the demand from local and county shows that imported food should be clearly labelled so that consumers at least have the option to buy British. In calling for food labelling to be a duty of the new Food Standards Agency explicitly set out in the Bill, our paramount aim is to protect public health. To achieve that, consumers must be able to read food labels with confidence. We therefore strongly commend the new clause.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I support the spirit behind the new clause, which was moved so comprehensively and at such fascinating length. The examples used by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) demonstrate clearly that people need nutritional value advice as well as food safety advice. I welcome the conversion of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

That is not what my hon. Friend was saying. She was saying that we want information on the label so that consumers can choose. We do not want the Government or any other body to say what people should eat because of its nutritional value. That would be acting as a nanny state, and we do not agree with that.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

That is not what I would suggest, either. Consumers need information that is scientifically well founded so that they can make up their minds about what to do. In that sense, I welcome the new clause. I was slightly confused about the discussion on the use of antibiotic growth promoters, as it seemed to run counter to amendment No. 10, which we are unlikely to reach if we continue at this rate. That amendment would decouple the FSA from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which clearly makes no sense whatever.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Perhaps the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will explain that.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

Yes. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Meriden could explain that later in the debate. We await with great interest the Minister's response to the new clause. I shall be extremely brief on all the amendments, because it is important that we have an opportunity to speak on every amendment, rather than having them rushed through at the end.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I rise to support the new clause—[Interruption.] I appreciate the welcoming chorus from Labour Members. It is interesting that they make the effort to speak in this debate when they were remarkably silent in Committee. The new clause has considerable merit. It is important that consumers can make an informed choice but, at times, it is important that they can make an ignorant choice, in the proper sense of the word. We make such choices all the time, but at least we have that choice. We often look at the labels on food and make decisions that may not be based on the best science or rationale. Sometimes, our choice is based on the product's price. At other times, it is based on our perception of the product. We may sometimes feel that only a bottle of French wine will suffice, but on other occasions we may prefer Australian wine.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

English wine.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

There are some good English wines, although I have never found a good red English wine. No doubt that comment will result in more death threats next week. However, there are some quite good white English wines. I can make that choice because the country of origin is on the label. The problem with food labelling is that the country of origin is put on the label when it suits the producer or retailer. It is included on all products where the retailer or producer thinks that it is a selling bonus. That happens in the wine business. Stilton cheese is another example—there is an added premium if the country of origin is on the label. If a producer thinks that his product will have a certain cachet because it is American or German, he adds the country of origin to the label. When the consumer does not see the country of origin on a label, he can always resort to the golden rule that the producers or manufacturers of that product are not as proud of it as they should be. There must be some good reason for the country of origin not to be specified; it is easier to persuade the consumer to purchase by making other claims on the label. All food labels make claims of some sort. They may not make claims in the technical MAFF sense—claims, for instance, that products contain low cholesterol or low fat—but, by its very nature, labelling is intended to summarise the nature of a product for advertising purposes. It is a selling mechanism in itself. The producers of food, even more than the producers of other materials, try to convey the key messages that they consider to be the strongest selling points. Naturally, Governments have traditionally insisted that labelling—not necessarily labelling on the front of products, but certainly labelling on the back of such products as the Cornish pasty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—should include descriptions that, at times, food manufacturers may not wish to include. I am thinking of, for instance, nutritional content, fat content, and other important information that the consumer wants. I merely say this: why stop at the present amount of information on the label? Of course we want to know about the energy content, the fat content, the salt content and the sugar content. The labels give us the nutritional information. It is sensible to want to know whether a product is gluten free, and whether it is suitable for people with a nut allergy. We will want to know whether the product has been approved as being genuinely organic, but we can only go by some of the approved standards. If there is a symbol on the product saying that it has been approved by the Soil Association, we cannot be sure that it is "perfectly" organic—I do not think that there is any perfectly organic foodstuff in the world—but we can at least know that it has crossed a certain threshold of organic production, and has been approved by the Soil Association or some other organisation.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman at any time. I rather enjoy his interventions.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

I am very worried by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I think that he is discrediting all organic farmers, and that he should withdraw his comments. He is making a very irrational point, and there is a grave danger that he could put a lot of people out of business.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly ridiculous as the day goes on. Obviously he is not deaf this time—

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

What?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It must be the stupidity that is cutting in on this occasion. It is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" organic, just as it is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" safe. If someone proves to me that a product is 100 per cent. organic, I shall be happy to endorse it; but does the Soil Association claim that all products featuring its logo saying that those products are organic according to its standards are 100 per cent. perfectly organically produced? Of course not. Those whose products qualify for the Soil Association logo have crossed the quality threshold, which is very high. That gives the consumer an idea of the nature of the product concerned. We are merely suggesting an addition to existing information on labels, which many consumers find helpful, although some will find it irrelevant. Some people who want to buy a Cornish pasty will use criteria other than the nutritional information on the back of the packaging. Some will want to know the proportion of meat in relation to the proportion of pastry; some will want to know whether the pasty has actually come from Cornwall; others will not care about those things, but will want to know the country of origin. Not every consumer reads everything on the label, and makes an informed choice after taking all that information into account. If every consumer did that, the queues in supermarkets would be even longer. When the Minister studies the food surveys that MAFF has produced, he will see that consumers sometimes make irrational choices. Indeed, according to the dietary experts, they sometimes make wrong choices. Nevertheless, the choices are theirs, based on the information on the labels. The new clause suggests the inclusion of information that most consumers will find handy and interesting: whether products are genetically modified, the country of origin, and the system of production. I think that, in regard to the system of production, the Government could be in a strong position in the future. Our production systems are one of Britain's strongest selling points, and we need to market that better on labels. 5.45 pm I suspect that the Minister would confirm that any survey of consumers asking, "Do you prefer buying food produced in factory or less humane systems"—however those may be described; whatever may be the current politically correct term for such systems—"or those produced in totally humane systems", consumers will certainly say, "We want products from totally humane systems—the best that there are." One could have disputes on what constitutes humanity or inhumanity in food production, or on which systems are best for food safety and animal welfare, but that is not the point of my speech. The point is that consumers say that they are interested in purchasing products from systems that are more humanely organised. At times, however, those very same consumers may not be willing to pay the premium of such systems. Nevertheless, generally—the Minister rightly boasts about this—whether in pigmeat production, free-range chicken meat or in future battery cages, Britain leads the world in systems of animal husbandry and animal welfare. I think that the Minister would also say that Britain leads the world in checks on veterinary products and on residual veterinary contaminants in meat. Therefore, identification as "British produced" would be a very great selling point to those concerned about animal welfare, and I hope that we shall be able to take that route. I appreciate that the Minister would have enormous difficulties in persuading his European Union partners to establish such a system and in insisting that foreign food should be so labelled. However, it is certainly within his gift to encourage British producers of quality products to adopt country of origin labelling, and I urge him to do so today.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on Report—which I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), think is an extremely important part of a Bill's passage. Report and Third Reading provide many hon. Members—who, for one reason or another, have been unable to speak on a Bill on Second Reading, or to play their part in Committee—with an opportunity to comment both on a Bill's provisions and on amendments made in Committee. I comment on behalf of my constituents, who consist not only of farmers and growers, but of consumers. To all those who might have criticised me in the past, saying that I was too much on the side of farmers, I point out that I have many more consumers than farmers in my constituency. Nevertheless, I believe that, on the whole, farmers work very hard to produce wholesome foods and other products. I also follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in all that he said about British produce—to which I shall return later in my speech. One of the difficulties of a shortened Report stage is that many excellent amendments on important provisions may not be debated—and I am referring specifically to the important provision of a right of appeal. I had always believed that we in the United Kingdom believed in justice and that, if a Government agency ruled on a certain matter, producers would always have a right of appeal against that ruling. Amendment No. 1 would reintroduce such a right of appeal, but we may not be able to consider it, and that is a pity. I acknowledge that the Government went to great trouble to introduce an innovative way of ensuring that the draft Bill was scrutinised, and that the results of that process have been widely acclaimed on both sides of the House. Moreover, proceedings on the Bill in Committee were very amicable, and that is also to be welcomed. Members of the public do not always realise that, whichever party is in government, there is often much common ground between the Government and the Opposition on matters of common sense. Therefore, I commend what has gone on. The Government are concerned about the wholesomeness of food and the health of the nation. Perhaps it is pertinent to reflect that although the agency to be set up by the Bill will ensure that food produced in the United Kingdom is produced to the highest standards, it will omit the most important part, in that it does not relate, nor could it relate, to food produced on the continent and elsewhere, because of the rules of the EU. These rules always seem to me to be ridiculous, and I cannot understand why neither the previous Government nor this one have tackled the problem with more enthusiasm and energy. There is no doubt that for beef, pigmeat or lamb—as well as eggs—the animals have been raised to the highest welfare standards. Farmers in my constituency are proud of the way in which they raise and care for their stock, and they send their stock to market in the best possible condition. We all know that that cannot be said of many countries in the EU. It is essential, for that reason, that British products are properly labelled—by that, I mean not labelled in a misleading way. For example, "British bacon" often comes not from pigs raised in this country, but from meat imported and processed in this country. That is dishonest, to say the least. If new clause 1 were accepted, it would be a major step forward. We are to provide more labelling of the nutritional element of food, and other information for the consumer—such as labelling of the country of origin. We must recognise also that these provisions equate with further regulations and added costs to producers, and therefore to the consumer. Many will consider the extra cost worth while, but we must recognise that we are placing added costs on our industry which will not be placed on industries in other countries from which we import food. Food labelling is here to stay and is welcomed by many consumers. However, much can be misleading, and the information given must be accurate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden listed a range of foods and products which were not as they appeared to be. However, organic products in this country—when they are approved by the Soil Association—are recognised as being of high quality.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Hear, hear.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The often rather belligerent hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) agrees with me, no doubt because he has organic producers in his constituency. When I served on the Agriculture Committee, we undertook an inquiry into these matters. With others, I visited Blagdon farms, where Yeo Valley yoghurt is produced, and we were given samples. I hasten to add that I did not feel that I had to include them in the Register of Members' Interests. Since then, I have bought nothing other than Yeo Valley organic yoghurt. It is excellent, and we ought to be promoting it throughout the EU as something that is produced in a wholesome and—I believe—old-fashioned way. I have always sought positively to buy British in everything, but especially in food, not least because I come from a farming and country background from way, way back. I have never, never bought French apples and I have no intention of doing so. When our apples and pears are not in season, I am more than happy to buy them from Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand or South Africa, but I am damned if I will buy those ghastly things that look perfect, but taste of nothing. That brings me to another subject.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

New Labour?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

No, something much more important than that. I am talking about British produce. We need to have British produce labelled as such, because it is the best marketing tool that we have. Sadly, many consumers buy on the basis of price rather than on the basis of quality. I always try to buy the best quality, and if necessary, I will buy less. It is essential to market our quality food. I hope that that message will go home and that we will be able further to promote the excellence of our produce.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Conservative, Wealden)

I welcome the Bill. New clause 1 would require that all food products are accurately labelled with a complete list of ingredients", but that is already done. I assume that that is the law. However, ingredients are often listed in a way that is very difficult to comprehend or even to read. I gather from the gossip in the Chamber that if we require country of origin labelling we may run up against European Union law. I hope not. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Will he let us know whether we cannot compel people to label food as made in this country because we will run up against Brussels?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I did not want to intervene, because of the time constraints, but if the hon. Gentleman will sit down I will answer him. He does not seem to want me to do that.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Conservative, Wealden)

I was making the point that labelling food as British is important as a marketing tool. We are moving towards having fewer and fewer subsidies, and we are encouraging our farmers to market quality products that should be better known by the public, such as Southdown lamb or York ham. I am not sure whether we can implement the requirement to include the system of production on the label, but the aims of the new clause should be studied seriously.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I shall do my best to respond to some of the issues raised, but I shall be brief and I apologise to the House for that. On virtually every issue about which it has been said during the past hour that the agency should do something, I can honestly say that the agency will act. I can say that because it is being done now to a greater or lesser extent within the joint food safety and standards group under existing law. However, there is always room for improvement—I would not argue about that. 6 pm There are good reasons for my asking the House not to accept new clause 1. The key reason is that it would make matters worse than they are now. The Bill is drafted in general terms, and the powers of existing legislation are being transferred to the Food Standards Agency. If we started listing in the Bill specific duties such as food labelling but did not list, for example, food composition, food authenticity, food additives, food hygiene and chemical contaminants, it would be argued in a court that those issues were less important than food labelling because Parliament had listed food labelling in the Bill. Yet they are all equally important. What is more, they are all covered by the agency's powers. That can be said without any qualification whatever. Naturally, some matters can be dealt with to a greater or lesser extent. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) invited me—indeed, he almost pushed me—to intervene, but when I stood up he did not sit down. To a certain extent, we are governed by European Union laws on labelling. It is not possible for us to go off on our own and invent a labelling regime. As I said recently at Question Time, there is nothing to stop British supermarkets and food producers putting the country of origin on all their food products, so long as the labelling does not mislead the public. They do not need a law or authority from this House; they can do it. We have to ask ourselves why they do not do it more often. Perhaps they are a bit ashamed of the origin. People should assume that if a product does not say it is British, it is not British. Some smaller supermarkets are going out of their way to label products as British or Welsh, particularly in respect of lamb, and others should be encouraged to do so.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

No, I must cover various points, and time is limited. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned the beef labelling scheme. It is a Europe-wide scheme which is voluntary now but which will be compulsory in due course. It is governed by a quite separate set of powerful rules and the independent audit of those who use it, even down to the method of slaughter and the sex and tag number of the animal if the person chooses to sell on that basis. That is important. In due course, that kind of scheme will undoubtedly be extended to other meat areas. I thought that the hon. Lady would not have the brass neck to mention GM foods but she did. It is worth putting on record again the fact that the Government inherited a policy not to label GM ingredients in foods. On 7 June 1997 we announced the change.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

May I lay to rest the absurd criticism that the Minister keeps coming up with? The previous Government voted against introducing labelling for GM foods because, as he said, at that time there was no way of testing for them, so the law could not have been enforced. As it was not possible to test for GM ingredients, it would have been a stupid law. Yes, the technology has moved on and it is now right to do that.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

That is not the reason. The reason for the policy not to label those foods was specifically because they were not technically or nutritionally different. The previous Government's policy was to label those foods if they were technically or nutritionally different. They were following to the letter the American system of not labelling food unless it was technically or nutritionally different. Soya and maize are not technically or nutritionally different; therefore the policy was not to label them. That is why we had to pass separate rules for labelling. The previous Government approved the EC's novel food regulations so that in future any new GM food would automatically require labelling. They approved that before we came to power, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is blown out of the water. They were content for future GM foods to be labelled. That was agreed in 1996, but the regulations did not cover maize and soya—the only such foods that were being imported other than tomato paste, which was always labelled. The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned an issue that has been reported in the press in the past few days. I went to a public meeting just like anyone else. The people from Nestle told the audience that they supplied Iceland under a commercial contract ingredients that included up to 1 per cent. GM ingredients for Iceland to sell as GM-free. I have disclosed that in the past, and I have been criticised by Iceland for doing so. Nestlé did not exactly boast about it, but it was part of the commercial contract. That was a matter of public knowledge. I was a member of an audience at a public meeting. The hon. lady also mentioned the important issue of antibiotics. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, under amendment No. 10, the Opposition do not want the Food Standards Agency to have anything to do with veterinary medicines. That does not square with what the hon. Lady said about antibiotics. Production methods and welfare-friendly labels are also important. The Food Standards Agency will have the power to investigate claims on labels that products are welfare friendly. If people misleadingly label something as welfare friendly and the agency checks on the files and finds that it is not, it will have the power to go on to farms to ensure that welfare-friendly methods are used. The issues raised in the new clause are covered by the Bill. My final point relates to imports. There has been a touch of xenophobia in some of the speeches, but I understand the concern. Many years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a piece in Birmingham. I had gone to buy a rotor arm for my old banger in the days when we had rotor arms. I picked up a product labelled as a Lucas rotor arm in a shop—it may have been Halfords, I do not know. It was vacuum packed and all that the label said was "Printed in the UK". I thought, "I'm an engineer. You don't print a rotor arm, you make it." It turned out that it was made in the Lucas factory in Brazil. Labels can give a false impression by putting perhaps only the country where the packaging was printed or where the last part of the process was carried out. There is no doubt that they can be misleading. More work needs to be done and more pressure needs to be put on the suppliers. As I said, there is nothing to stop suppliers insisting that the country of origin is labelled on their produce. We ought to do more to encourage our constituents to demand that. Legislation is not necessarily required to make it effective. The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned imports. We do not always know what is going on and there will not be time to discuss all the amendments, but we are able to turn back imports or check them if there is a problem because they are labelled and we can take them out of the food chain if necessary. We recently picked up some problems with imports of beef carcases from the Republic of Ireland, which had to be labelled. Specified risk materials are found in imports. I understand that one lot was found today; so the checks are going on. Reference was made to Belgium. We were able to check pork and poultry consignments from Belgium. They were all impounded and returned to Belgium or destroyed. An enormous amount of work is therefore being done to check these things. Labelling of country of origin or code numbers is important in that connection. To accept the new clause would be to make it more difficult for the Food Standards Agency to deal with the issues that I have raised, where problems arise. Those issues are not written into the Bill, but the agency will deal with them. They include contamination, adulteration and food composition. It is important that we leave the agency with as much general power as possible to carry on work that is already taking place. The thrust of the demands of hon. Members who have spoken are covered in the Bill and the powers that the House is giving to the agency.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. He clearly stated, as he did in Committee, that a clear transfer of power to the agency is taking place to enable it to take over the role of enforcing labelling rules. That is what he says the agency will be doing. However, we really did want that to be included in the Bill. We are left to fall back on the explanatory notes. I am disappointed that, after we had provided so many examples of the current inadequacy of the rules, we do not seem fully to have made the point that we did not want to transfer the power under the existing set of rules. However, given the Minister's comments, we hope that the agency will take a proactive stance in addressing some of those confusing points. I certainly want to dispel any idea that xenophobia lay behind our desire for clear labelling of the country of origin—quite the opposite. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we heard a good example of why the consumer might want to buy a foreign product. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to the cachet of a foreign product; he gave as an example the contrast between Somerset and French Brie. As the two are largely indistinguishable, they would need to be labelled accurately with their country of origin in order to enable consumers to buy the foreign product if they wanted to do so. That is not xenophobia; it has a great deal to do with choice, but more important—in relation to what lies at the heart of the Bill—it would protect food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to organic standards. If the Government are unwilling to accept the new clause, we want to press the Minister and—through him—the new agency to consider the problem posed by the fact that organic standards are not common throughout the European Union. The standard set by the Soil Association in this country is much higher. Indeed, that is why my hon. Friend has such confidence in the organic products that she buys. However, her point illustrates the weakness of the rules that the Food Standards Agency will inherit. We should like the agency to do something about that. Somewhat reluctantly, we take the Minister at his word. He assures us that all the powers for the enforcement of food labelling will be transferred lock, stock and barrel. We urge him to ensure that the Food Standards Agency considers thoroughly the inadequacy of the set of rules with which it will have to work, but, based on what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS IN WALES

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 24, page 13, line 10, at end insert— '(7A) If the Agency fails to comply with directions under subsection (1) in a case where the power under subsection (1) has been exercised by the National Assembly for Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may— (a) remove from office the member of the Agency appointed by it, and (b) remove from office any members of the advisory committee for Wales, and until new appointments are made, may itself make provision for the carrying out of the Agency's functions.'. No. 13, in clause 33, page 17, line 43, at end insert '; or— (C) the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be any longer exercisable in or as regards Wales.'. No. 14, in page 18, line 5, at end insert— '(aa) modifying this or any other Act as She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales of the sort referred to in subsection (1)(c) above;'. No. 35, in schedule 4, page 36, line 5, at end insert—'Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)— . In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 there shall be inserted— Food Standards Agency. Food Standards Agency advisory committee for Wales.".'

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

It is a pleasure to speak to the new clause and the amendments. The spirit of these matters was discussed in the National Assembly for Wales when the Health and Social Services Committee considered whether there should be a separate agency for Wales. Clause 33 in particular makes one realise that the House is already paving the way, under the devolved provisions, for the possibility of separate agencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas no such provision is being made for Wales. That is a mistake. If Wales wants to pursue separate policies on food standards and wants the same flexibility as Scotland and Northern Ireland, it should have that opportunity. I have considered the advice given to the Committee of the National Assembly on why a separate agency might not be appropriate for Wales. I confess that I do not find it very convincing. For example, it says that a separate agency for Wales would require separate scientific advice. I do not see why that should be so. If scientific advice is available to the agency in England, it could be provided to an agency in Wales. 6.15 pm For example, the Welsh Assembly received scientific advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee when we conducted our inquiry into beef on the bone. It was not necessary for the Welsh Assembly to have separate scientific advice. It was perfectly proper for it to accept SEAC's advice on that occasion, so I see no reason why the situation should be different with the Food Standards Agency. The Bill should allow the Welsh Assembly to have the same flexibility as Scotland and Northern Ireland in developing policies and, in the interests of consistency, we should have similar provisions. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be viewed in the context of our argument in support of new clause 3. I therefore move quickly to amendment No. 17. It would give the Assembly the power to remove the agency member for Wales who is appointed by the Assembly under clause 2, and any member of the advisory committee for Wales. That would be a useful addition to the powers conferred on the Welsh Assembly by this legislation. Although I hope that we will never have to call for the removal of appointees, it is important to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has that sanction. In the interests of brevity, I shall move on to amendment No. 35. As the House will know, the schedule to the Government of Wales Act 1998 lists several bodies that the Assembly can call to give advice to it and evidence to its Sub-Committees. The Welsh Assembly has been working for only a matter of weeks, but I think that subject Committees are an excellent concept. The Committees are doing excellent work and providing good information to the people of Wales. I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment because I think that the Food Standards Agency should be called to give evidence to the appropriate Sub-Committee which will want to consider a range of issues in the interests of probity. On that basis, I hope that the Government will feel minded to accept at least some of the amendments.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

Quite right.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I was a member of the Special Select Committee that considered the Bill, but I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I shall dispel a myth that has pervaded the debates on this Bill. Rather than analysing the Bill clause by clause, the Select Committee considered its general provisions. We did so in a short time, and with some confusion of evidence, because those who were presenting evidence were not sure whether they were doing so to us, as a Select Committee of the House, or to the Government. The Select Committee considered the subject of this new clause and amendments, the consequences of devolution and the problems of a UK-wide agency that would be answerable to four different independent bodies: the Department of Health, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. There is today a supreme irony in the amendments moved on behalf of Plaid Cymru by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) because they undermine the spirit of the devolved Welsh Assembly, which does not, as the Minister stated, have primary legislative functions. They would also take Wales out of the Food Standards Bill altogether, or, as I suspect the hon. Member for Ynys Môn desires, create a separate Welsh food standards agency. The irony of that is demonstrated on the front page of today's Western Mail, which carries the headline, "Fury as beef on the bone ban stays", following the announcement yesterday at a press conference in Cardiff of what had been the worst-kept secret in Welsh agriculture for the past week. Meeting in private last week, the Agriculture Committee of the National Assembly for Wales voted to forgo its existing powers in an important area of food standards—the beef-on-the-bone ban. Members of that Committee had earlier said that they would vote to lift the ban, but have now changed their minds.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

In his interpretation—that Assembly Members were not forgoing their powers but deciding not to do something—the Minister is playing with semantics. The key point that I wanted to make is that the three Opposition parties in Wales—the Conservatives, the Liberals and Plaid Cymru—had campaigned strongly for an early and unilateral lifting of the ban. That was a pre-election pledge of all three parties. Today's Western Mail article points out that It emerged that those on the agriculture committee who changed their minds were largely Plaid Cymru members"— a stance which, to some extent, makes nonsense of the amendments in the name of the four Plaid Cymru Members of this House. If the ban had been lifted, it would have made nonsense of the Government's desire, to which I believe the Minister alluded just now, for a United Kingdom Food Standards Agency with UK-wide powers and UK-wide implementation—a concept which the Opposition support. I should like to examine for a moment the nonsense of the amendments. I shall ignore amendment No. 35, which the Minister has said he is prepared to accept, but I shall focus on new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which would effectively give the Welsh Assembly the power to opt out, if it so desires, of the new food standards regime completely, or to set up its own regime, with a Welsh food standards agency. The Minister mentioned the process that took place in the National Assembly for Wales. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly considered that matter on 23 June 1999.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I shall not pass comment on the hon. Gentleman's mischievous earlier remarks; I may refer to them in passing when I reply to the Minister's speech. However, will the hon. Gentleman read the Bill, and will he make specific comments about Wales? Clause 33(1)(a) says that the Scottish Parliament can pass an Act providing for any functions of the Agency to be no longer exercisable in or as regards Scotland". What is the difference?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The difference is that the Scottish Parliament was set up with primary legislative powers but the Welsh Assembly was not. The Welsh Assembly was never envisaged as such and, in the referendum on setting up the Welsh Assembly, there was never any suggestion that the Assembly would have those powers. They are not in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The amendments would move us on a ratchet or two, by giving the Welsh Assembly those powers. That was never the intention of the House or of the people of Wales. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly was advised to support the proposal in the Bill that the Food Standards Agency should be a UK-wide body, advising and reporting to the Assembly in relation to Wales, and carrying out the food safety and standards functions currently discharged by Assembly staff as well as the new UK functions proposed in the Bill. To ensure that the Welsh dimension is appropriately covered, the arrangements for the Food Standards Agency's operations in respect of Wales will include a Welsh Executive; an advisory committee for Wales; and sole appointment by the Assembly of a board member with special responsibility for Wales. There has been general support in Wales for the principle of a UK agency. That approach was recommended by the Government on the grounds of consistency and cost. As food safety and standards are tightly constrained by the European Union legislative framework, there seems to be little scope for variation in secondary legislation. 6.30 pm I shall refer to two items contained in the recommendations to the Health and Social Services Committee on 23 June, which are important to the new clause and the amendments. The committee was told that food safety is an issue of great public concern. We would not object to that. The document continues: The need for consistency of policy and advice to the public is therefore a key consideration. Were there to be a separate Agency for Wales, it would need access to separate scientific advice from that which will be provided by existing committees to the Agency in England. There would therefore be a real danger of conflicting advice being made available, which would cause public confusion. In addition, since the scientific advisory committees which currently advise the Government are made up of the highest calibre independent scientists, it would be difficult to find sufficient independent scientists of high enough standing to advise a separate Welsh Agency. That was the first part of the recommendation to the National Assembly. The separate point is that the cost of establishing a completely separate Agency in Wales would be far greater than the Welsh share of current costs. This additional cost would have to be met from within the Assembly's current budget at the expense of other priorities. Historically the Welsh Office has relied on expertise in the Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in many areas. For example, the Welsh Office has no trading standards advisers. It will be far more cost-effective for the Welsh Executive to use the central services provided by the Agency's headquarters, for example for financial services and I.T. support, than to seek to duplicate these functions in a separate Agency. The Bill provides for arrangements which will make the Agency properly accountable to the Assembly; will ensure that the Agency takes account of Welsh issues in advising the Assembly on legislation and in advising the public; and will allow the Assembly to monitor the Agency's performance and propose changes to its priorities and functions. That was the evidence that the Health and Social Services Committee considered. I have read through the committee's minutes and I will refer to a couple of items. It is stated in the minutes that it is also important for Wales to maintain access to the best scientific advice…A separate Welsh Agency would lead to an unnecessary duplication of work. That is repeated by the members of the committee. The minutes continue: The costs of setting up a separate Welsh Agency were estimated"— this was during the meeting on 23 June— to be approximately £6 million, whilst funding a Welsh Executive would require less than £1 million. Therefore, ensuring that Wales maintains a strong and distinctive voice within the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency is somewhat more important than having a separate Welsh food standards agency, which would be constrained both in its scientific advice and its financial resources. The minutes record that the Committee accepted the proposal for a UK Food Standards Agency. The Minister of State may recall our exchanges in the Select Committee on green top milk, which is banned in Scotland but freely available in England and Wales. We also discussed the beef-on-the-bone ban, even before the Bill was introduced. As has been said, the Welsh Assembly could have lifted that ban this week. Consumers in Chester, Hereford or Bristol could have made the short trip over the border and bought products banned in their local shops. Smuggling would have taken on new connotations in a UK context. It is possible, even without the amendments, that the FSA could recommend lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban. That advice could be accepted by the Welsh Assembly but rejected by the Department of Health. However, the consequences of the amendments go beyond those deficiencies of the Bill. The amendments drive a coach and horses through the concept of a UK-wide Food Standards Agency. Separate arrangements for Wales would lead to confusion among consumers. A separate Welsh food standards agency would do a great disservice to the Welsh consumer and to the Welsh taxpayer. The cost, as we know, would be at least £6 million, just to create the separate administrative structure. I would be interested in any advice that the Minister could give about the cost of a separate meat hygiene service for Wales, if that were bolted on to a Welsh food standards agency. A more important objection to the amendments must be on the grounds of safety and science. The original arguments for creating the agency were that it would be able to call on the best scientific advice available, and would have the resources to pay for it. Separate scientific advice available to a smaller, less-well-resourced Welsh food standards agency could only be inferior. I heard the comment of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that a separate agency could receive the same advice but, if it came to different conclusions, the Welsh consumer might suffer. Welsh consumers deserve the same superior scientific advice as their English and Scots cousins enjoy. The fundamental objection to the amendments is constitutional. They are a clear attempt by the Welsh nationalists to move the goalposts in respect of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. The amendments would enable the Welsh Assembly to pass primary legislation. That was never the Government's intention in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and nor was it the will of the Welsh people in the referendum. It would certainly have been opposed by Conservative Members. On those grounds alone, regardless of the scientific and the cost grounds, we have no reason to support the amendments.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I now understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). We have just heard a trainee colonial governor's announcement of what should happen in one of our dependencies. [Interruption.] It is well known that I represent an offshore dependency. We welcome the ministerial decision on amendment No. 35. There might have been less support in Wales for the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn if the Government had been less opaque about the functioning and reporting of concordats. I hope that we will have an assurance from the Government that the Welsh Assembly will be an active participant in the drawing up of concordats, and that Assembly Members will be able to discuss them openly and publicly.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

The speech of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made the case for devolution better than any argument that I have ever heard. It was paternalistic and arrogant, and the hon. Gentleman failed to understand the concept of devolution. It is little wonder that his party's vote collapsed in Wales during the recent elections to the National Assembly. On that performance, it will never rise again. All that we seek to achieve through the amendments is to enable Wales to be treated in the same way as Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks much more carefully if he had read the National Assembly's report on beef on the bone. He quoted selectively from the Western Mail, but he failed to tell the House that, in that same report, is a quote from the Conservative Member of the Committee, saying in terms that he accepted that the issue of lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban was not as simple as he had originally thought. The National Assembly has decided not to abrogate its responsibility but to listen to the medical advice. When that becomes available in August, we shall reconsider the matter. The hon. Gentleman quotes extensively from some Assembly documents to support his case, but simply ignores others. Having put on the record the correct position with regard to the National Assembly, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that, on the basis that he accepts amendment No. 35 and that a quarter of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, I shall not press the three amendments that he was unable to accept, and that I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD POLICY AND PROVISION OF ADVICE, ETC. TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 19, at end insert— '(1B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Agency has the function of— (a) investigating and monitoring the effect on food safety of— (i) animal husbandry systems and practices with inadequate standards of animal health and welfare; (ii) the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals for growth promotion or prophylactic purposes; and (iii) slaughterhouse systems and practices with inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare; and (b) developing policies relating to any matters identified during the investigation and monitoring mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) which the Agency considers have a significant effect on food safety.'. The amendment would include among the agency's functions a duty to examine the effects on human health of farming systems with low standards of animal health and welfare. It extends the agency's remit in three areas, each of which has implications for human health—first, the conditions in which animals raised for their meat are reared; secondly, the routine use of antibiotics for growth or the suppression of disease, and, thirdly, conditions in slaughterhouses. I shall deal with each in turn. I make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to see the principal responsibility for the welfare of farm animals taken away from the animal welfare division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which, by and large, does a fine job. I simply argue that the Food Standards Agency needs to be able to address all the elements that jeopardise food safety, and those clearly include poor animal welfare. I make it clear, too, that I do not suggest that intensive animal husbandry is responsible for all or even most of the threats to food safety. Obviously, there are many other factors, including the way in which food is stored and prepared in the catering industry and at home. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the growth of industrial farming has coincided with a dramatic increase in food poisoning—by more than 450 per cent. during the past 15 years. No doubt, there are many explanations for that, but I should be surprised if that was not in some way connected with the appalling conditions in which so many farm animals are reared. Most pigs, chickens and turkeys are intensively farmed. Broilers—chickens reared for their meat—are kept for their entire lives in huge windowless sheds, which are so overcrowded that, as the birds grow, the floor is scarcely visible. The birds are kept on litter, usually wood shavings, which is often never changed throughout their short miserable lives. Those birds often literally live in their own excrement. It is hardly surprising that bacteria flourish in such conditions. Three years ago, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food concluded: Poultry meat continues to be a significant route for the transmission of salmonella and campylobacter into industrial, domestic and catering environments. The committee drew attention to a 1994 survey by the Public Health Laboratory Service, which found that 41 per cent. of UK-produced frozen chickens and one third of chilled chickens were infected with salmonella. Those figures may be coming down, but they are far too high. Supermarkets find that around 10 per cent. of the 720 million chickens slaughtered each year are infected—that is, 72 million chickens infected each year. A 1994 European Community survey found that 44 per cent. of UK-produced chickens are infected with campylobacter. I believe that those remarkably high levels stem in part from unhealthy farming and slaughter practices. My amendment would give the agency power to address that issue. 6.45 pm The second part of my amendment deals with the routine use of antibiotics artificially to suppress the diseases caused by intensive animal husbandry. That must also have implications for human health. For many factory farmers, antibiotics have become a substitute for hygiene and good practice and they are also used to promote growth. Quite apart from the moral issues involved, that gross misuse of drugs is bound to have implications for human health. I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that one inevitable consequence of that will be the encouragement of the growth of bacteria that are resistant not only to antibiotics used on animals, but to those used by humans. In my view, human and animal welfare are inextricably linked. When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Second Reading, he told me that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters would be within the remit of the agency. My amendment makes that explicit and goes a little further: it would enable the agency to address the misuse of antibiotics for veterinary purposes—that is, as a substitute for humane conditions. Finally, my amendment would give the agency power to take an interest in conditions in slaughterhouses, where they are relevant to human health. Modern abattoirs are capable of slaughtering as many as 300 pigs or 8,000 chickens an hour. At that rate, even with the best will in the world—that is not always present—it will be nigh on impossible to safeguard either the welfare of animals or the hygiene of the meat. I shall leave to one side for the purpose of this debate the unspeakable cruelty to which industrial killing on such a scale gives rise and focus instead solely on the implications for human health. The 1996 report of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food identified slaughterhouses as a significant contributor to the high levels of salmonella and campylobacter found in poultrymeat. The Committee said: Slaughter and processing operations give rise to a very wide range of practices which can have a serious effect on the spread of microbiological contamination". My amendment would bring slaughterhouses within the remit of the agency. I appreciate that it may be argued that there are other agencies with responsibility for the regulation of factory farming and slaughterhouses. I wish them well in their work and I have no desire to diminish their powers. In the interests of joined-up government, which we are all in favour of these days, the Food Standards Agency will no doubt want to work closely with them in any case, but I do not see why slaughterhouses, where relevant, should not fall within the remit of the agency. I commend the amendment to the House.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I want to put on record a few of the Opposition's thoughts on the amendment. We sympathise very much with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) about the objective of ensuring that our food is humanely and hygienically reared and hygienically slaughtered and processed. However, we have some real doubts about some of those points and the way in which the amendment could operate. First, the word "inadequate" appears twice in the amendment. I suggest that what is and is not inadequate welfare is a highly subjective matter, and that word in itself would cause major legal problems of interpretation. Secondly, I should put it on record that I think it is very unwise to suggest or imply that different systems of animal welfare automatically bring with them different hygiene and food safety issues. There will not necessarily be such a conjunction. The example of eggs was mentioned in Committee and there is evidence that eggs produced in well-managed battery cages are probably more hygienic and less likely to carry salmonella than free-range eggs. The difference is not the system of welfare and of keeping animals, but the standard of husbandry, the management and the human aspect. The point is not whether chickens, pigs or whatever are kept in a particular system, but whether they are managed effectively. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to broilers kept in their own excrement. Such an emotive statement belies the truth entirely. Yes, they are kept on wood shavings, but, as he said, they are there only for a short period and it is not necessary to replace them. Indeed, it would be physically impossible to replace them without huge welfare implications—moving the birds off the shavings so that new ones could be put in would have huge welfare implications. To suggest that systems of welfare carry different food safety implications is to ignore the reality. Good farmers will produce safe food in any conditions. Bad farmers—we have to admit that there are some examples—will produce unsafe food whatever the conditions, including free range; the sort of conditions that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South probably espouses. It is the quality of the management that matters.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

Is not the purpose of the Food Standards Agency to establish whether there is a link between animal welfare, the methods of rearing animals and producing food and food safety? We can all make assumptions from different perspectives in the animal welfare sector, but we need scientific evidence, such as that quoted by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to ensure that we are protecting the public.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am putting forward reasons why the Government would be ill advised to accept the amendment. We do not support it, although it is not out of lack of sympathy. If he looks at the Bill in its entirety, the hon. Gentleman will find that there is plenty of scope for the agency to examine the issues to which he refers. My point is that implicit in the amendment is the suggestion that different animal welfare systems automatically carry with them different food safety implications. I reject that contention.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that changes in agricultural practices since the war are responsible for increased food poisoning, but the greatest changes have taken place in methods of food storage and preparation, in the types of food available and in cooking methods—microwaves and all the other food technology—plus a changing population eating on the hoof and not cooking food in the old-fashioned way, when everything was roasted or boiled to extinction.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

My right hon. Friend makes the point that I was going to make in my next sentence. In the past two or three decades, we have moved from the situation where the housewife—usually the person in the house, although I shall try to avoid sexism—purchases the raw materials and prepares a cooked meal. Nowadays, that is much less often the case. Therefore, a raft of changes could have brought about hygiene problems.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that I acknowledged that point, and said that animal welfare systems were just one of the factors. I did not claim even that they were the greatest factor. I accept his argument.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I accept that. The positive side of the amendment, which does not outweigh the negative side—which is why we cannot support it—is that it would allow the Food Standards Agency to emphasise what the Opposition contend are already high welfare standards in this country. There will always be room for improvement. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South would probably disagree about aspects of that improvement, and no one would pretend that there is not always room for some change. However, the Minister of State rightly praised our standards of welfare. This country has already taken steps to outlaw veal crates, sow stalls and tethers. We have higher welfare standards than many of the countries from which we import food. Ministers have rightly spoken about the welfare premium. However, that is made at the retail end; it is important that it is reflected in the extra costs incurred by producers. For example, our pig producers, who produce pigs without using stalls or tethers because those are illegal here, must compete with producers of pigmeat produced in countries that use those systems. In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to the importance of ensuring that labelling included the system of production and the country of origin, so that consumers could bear those in mind in making a choice. If a housewife wants to buy foreign pigmeat, she should be able to do so in the full knowledge that it might not have been reared to the standards which we expect to be used in this country.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

I happen to know that, yesterday, my hon. Friend met the chairman of Assured British Meats. Does he agree that many of the points that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made are covered by the scheme of policing, controlling and monitoring all the processes in the production of British meat, which is partly funded from public money? Does not that answer many of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman made?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend, with his immense knowledge of the meat industry, is entirely right. Assured British Meat, set up and partly funded from public money, is doing a fantastic job in ensuring that our meat is produced to the highest standards, and that that is used as a marketing tool so that the public are aware of it. We sympathise with the objective of ensuring that those matters are taken into account—I have not mentioned slaughterhouses as I am sure that the Minister will pick that point up—but we have serious doubts about the phrasing of the amendment. We shall therefore not support it, should it be pushed to a vote.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I share many of the doubts and reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the amendment. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I had an opportunity to discuss these issues, and I understand and respect his concerns. He may be partly right and partly wrong about this issue, but in a sense that does not matter in terms of his proposals because the Bill fully addresses all the concerns that he has expressed. The amendment would not extend the Bill, as he suggested in his opening remarks, but would lead to overdue specification of one aspect of the concerns and issues that the agency will address. Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 deal with the agency's functions. They deal with developing policies for food safety or other consumer interests in relation to food. Clause 7 provides advice and information to the general public. Under clause 8, the agency has the function of obtaining information on those issues. Clause 9 deals with animal feeding stuffs—which, at least in part, deals with the hon. Gentleman's concern about antibiotics. Crucially, clause 10, on the powers of the agency, says: The Agency may, for the purpose of carrying out its function under section 8 or…9,…with a view to obtaining information about…any aspect of the production or supply of food or food sources", seek information, including observations about agricultural premises, agricultural businesses or agricultural activities". The Bill therefore contains a comprehensive range of provisions, which fully deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Whether his concerns are legitimate or not is irrelevant. The agency has those powers. I repeat the concern expressed by the Minister about new clause 1. He said that to accept new clause 1 would be to distort the purpose of the agency. Accepting amendment No. 11 would have the same effect: it would distort the purpose of the agency by putting undue focus on specific activities, concerns and issues in the food chain, when there are so many others that should worry us. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, South wanted to highlight one priority, it should have been that which he just mentioned in passing. It is one that he and I discussed, and which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean): the priority of hygiene in the kitchen. 7 pm If I were asked which of all the concerns about food safety was the most important, I would say it was hygiene. To make the issues raised today by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South a priority would be to detract from what I consider to be the priority. It is clear that most instances of food poisoning occur after the food has left the farm, and after it has left the factory, and that it tends to occur in catering establishments more often than in the home. In saying that, I do not intend to excuse poor standards earlier in the food chain. It is crucial for our farmers to produce food to the highest possible standards, and there is no excuse for sloppy practices.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

One of the problems in kitchens now is that some utensils are coated with antibiotics. That is relevant to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Antibiotic resistance is being passed on to the human population. You win some, you lose some.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I do not think that we need to debate the merits of the issue. I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said: issues do arise from antibiotic resistance. I think that most of them arise from overuse of antibiotics in human medicine rather than animal medicine, but that is not to deny that antibiotics in animal medicines and practices pose a problem. My Select Committee expressed concern—albeit perhaps a little too simply—in its report on food safety, which was published more than a year ago. I share the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the definition of "inadequate". The definition itself is inadequate. Two sub—paragraphs in amendment No. 11 use that word, referring to inadequate standards of animal health and welfare and inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare". I agree with my hon. Friend that "inadequate" is a very subjective term, and I think that that in itself is a good reason for us to doubt the merits of the amendment. I am also worried about the highlighting of "slaughterhouse systems and practices". I respect the concerns that were in the mind of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he tabled the amendment, and I do not know the views of other Conservative Members, but I believe that, if anything, slaughterhouses are already over-regulated. Some of the most animal welfare friendly slaughterhouses in Worcestershire have been forced to close as a result of over-regulation, and I think that the Government are doing a tremendous job in monitoring the standards of the abattoirs that remain. The hygiene assessment score system is working extremely well, and I think that it deserves our support. The requirement that the amendment imposes on slaughterhouse systems suggests the existence of a worry that the House ought not to have. The Minister of State should be congratulated on what he is doing to drive up standards, but that has already been at some cost. Some of the best slaughterhouses have already gone, and those that remain are paying a heavy price for the privilege of this system of regulation. The amendment might have a particularly heavy impact on domestic production, and no corresponding impact on imported products. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made that point. Many of our greatest concerns are not about British systems, which are generally the best in the world, but about foreign systems, which clearly are not. My hon. Friend rightly spoke at length about pigs. That is a classic example of our standards being the highest in the world, but I fear that the amendment could send a signal to the contrary. I am also worried about the fact that the amendment deals only with livestock. Many food poisoning issues have nothing whatever to do with livestock; they relate to a range of other foodstuffs. I do not think that it is helpful to highlight livestock as being a particular problem. It is understandable that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South should feel as he does about intensive farming, but disease control is often easier in intensive farming systems than in non-intensive systems. The incidence of, for example, salmonella is often a great deal higher in the case of free-range chickens and free-range eggs, and—ironically—badly managed free-range chicken production is often less welfare friendly than well-managed intensive systems. That, however, is a separate issue. The House should reject the amendment because it is unnecessary. It adds nothing to the Bill and it gives priority to the wrong set of issues. I hope that the Minister will invite the House to reject it.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Conservative, Wealden)

I want to follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and echo his hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not look with favour on amendment No. 11. The Minister will be aware that, earlier this year, the Agriculture Minister announced a programme of increased inspections which, if implemented, would have cost the abattoir industry an extra £20 million. However, I am glad to say that as a consequence of representations, he announced a complete deferral of specified risk material inspection costs for that financial year. Subsequently, we have learned that, in the past few years, there has been tremendous improvement—and rightly so—in the United Kingdom's abattoirs. The risk that we run now is that, by imposing so many extra costs and regulations, we shall close down the abattoirs and cause something that I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would not like at all: longer journeys, at great expense, for animals on the way from farms to the slaughterhouse. Although it is very much better to have those facilities close to farms, in my own area, for example, we have only two small abattoirs left. The head of the farm animals department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that the originally proposed additional costs represented a serious economic threat, and that there was no doubt that the current proposals would result in the closure of some small abattoirs. We therefore believe that the extra burdens proposed in amendment No. 11 would be counterproductive. If we are to maintain standards and have the farming communities on our side, and in the light of action already taken, we must be very careful to avoid imposing further burdens that will have a counterproductive effect.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

In supporting the purpose of amendment No. 11, I should like also to draw attention to the significance of small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs in meeting high animal welfare standards. If we had had sufficient time, amendment No. 11 could and should have been debated in relation to amendment No. 32—which I had hoped we would be able to debate. However, as we are now entering the third hour of a three-hour debate, but have reached only the third group of amendments, it is becoming clear that we shall not reach the ninth group, which deals with the fact that—for the reasons already given by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs meet very high animal welfare standards. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would accept that, because of shorter travel times and a quieter and less stressful environment inside the abattoirs themselves, low-throughput abattoirs meet high animal welfare standards. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) correctly said, on any objective assessment, inspection levels at small, low-throughput abattoirs are excessively high. Just last week, for example, one small abattoir in my constituency complained that it had four inspectors watching one person work. The week before, the ratio was three inspectors to two workers. Such an inspection level, and the charges consequently imposed, is a burden on small businesses. An important aspect of the Bill is its provision for both high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. As I said, I had hoped that, were it not for the antics largely of Conservative Members, we would have an opportunity to consider fully all of the amendments tabled on Report, so that we might be able to consider the very deep and serious concerns of small businesses about the Food Standards Agency's impact on them.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand the frustrations felt by Liberal Democrats at the lack of progress. Having expressed that frustration, I wish to say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that there is a crucial link between the importance of meeting high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. It not just a question of low-throughput abattoirs. I hope that the Minister will take account of the impact of the Food Standards Agency on small businesses, because small producers, processors and retailers need advice and help, as well as a recognition that they do not want disproportionate charges laid upon them. Such charges could put them out of business and result in lower animal welfare standards all round and a considerable diminution in the fabric of rural life, severely damaging the economy of rural areas.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

The House is well aware of my hon. Friend's championing of the small business man, and of business generally. However, surely he is not suggesting that the Minister should look sympathetically at proposals which would in any way lower standards of animal welfare, as well as those standards that the public would require from small businesses to remain confident that they were supplying a product which was good enough for them to eat and for their families to enjoy.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I want to emphasise, as I have done before, that it is not a question of lowering standards for small, low-throughput producers: it is quite the opposite—small producers usually meet high standards of hygiene. We must take into account the effect of the operation of the agency on small businesses; otherwise it will damage the rural economy and the rural way of life, and jobs will be lost. Through that, the quality of animal welfare will be reduced.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in that it has provided us with this debate. I recall my hon. Friend's contribution at Second Reading, and he has referred to an aspect of the Bill that is in the shadows and does not have as high a profile as some other issues. Nevertheless, it is an important matter. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that the thrust of the issues that he has raised will be taken on board in the Bill. The Bill extends the scope of the Food Safety Act 1990 to cover production of food sources. That means that the regulation-making powers of the 1990 Act could, if necessary—for food safety reasons—be used in relation to husbandry matters. There is no question about that. The lead role in the use of antibiotic growth-promoters in farm animals will continue to fall to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, an agency of MAFF. However, the Food Standards Agency will have an effective veto on the regulation of veterinary medicines. A member or placeperson of the agency will be on the Veterinary Products Committee, which gives independent scientific advice to the Government. The agency will be involved closely in any matters concerned with antibiotic resistance, which is clearly a public health matter and goes beyond my Department. I understand the issues touched on in relation to slaughterhouses. Hon. Members know that, because of the time allocation, they have used up too much time on that subject, and they cannot debate the Meat Hygiene Service.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

There is still time.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

The hon. Gentleman does not know when I am going to sit down. 7.15 pm Legitimate points have been made and I understand the frustrations. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Food Standards Agency will have direct and specific responsibility for both policy and enforcement in all abattoirs. The Meat Hygiene Service will be part of the agency and accountable to it. There will be separate arrangements for auditing, which we discussed in Committee but will not have the chance to debate today. The hygiene and animal welfare rules for slaughterhouses are a direct responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. There is no question whatever about that. That is important because the meat industry is big business. We slaughtered 10,000 cattle today for food. We did the same yesterday and we will do the same tomorrow. There are huge factory abattoirs and small abattoirs where slaughtering may occur only one day a week. We slaughtered 2 million broiler chickens today; we did it yesterday, and we will do it tomorrow. The hygiene conditions must be tightly controlled and I make no apology for the actions that we have taken in the past two years to drive up standards in the meat industry. I made my own modest contribution by going through a small part of the modules of the Meat Training Council. I got nowhere near slaughtering, of course, but I wanted to show that we are mustard keen on better and more training for everyone throughout the industry. I did not see why a Minister should be kept out of that if I could do something to contribute.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

As president of the Meat Training Council, I want to tell the House that we are all in this together. We all want to raise standards and improve training, hygiene and efficiency in the industry. We are most grateful to the Minister for having submitted himself to the course that he underwent.

Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North)

The running dogs of the pig industry.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

No, no. Hang on. In the days when we had them, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was my pair, so leave him alone. The Food Standards Agency will be able to go anywhere in the food chain—there are no no-go areas in the food production system—and it will interfere or regulate to a greater or lesser extent at different parts of that chain, hardly touching some and getting actively involved in others. If there are arguments about the quality of welfare-friendly meat and mis-labelling, it will certainly have the powers to get that sorted out. I have been to nine abattoirs—I visited one pig abattoir with the hon. Member for Ludlow—to see matters at first hand. Welfare conditions at slaughter are crucial, not only because of our respect for animals but because meat from happy animals tastes better. A happy pig is a tasty pig. There are chemical changes in animals slaughtered in stressful conditions. That is a plain fact. We must treat such issues extremely seriously. The amendment is not necessary. The wholly legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South are covered in the Bill, as the agency will have powers throughout the food chain and in relation to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The Meat Hygiene Service does not currently set its own policy—the policy is agreed between the Department of Health and my Ministry in the joint food safety and standards group—but the Food Standards Agency will take that role and will be able to deal with clean cattle policy and hygiene rules at slaughtering. So these matters are central to the Bill; they are not outwith it. Salmonella was mentioned. In the coming weeks and months we shall be discussing performance targets for the agency—how we can check whether it is doing the job that the House intends it to do. One such measure would not be simply to reduce food poisoning because we do not know its cause. It is multifaceted, so difficult to set as a performance target. However, the eradication of salmonella and campylobacter in the flock could be looked at over a period of years because there are techniques known to do that. One factor in the assessment of the agency's success could be just that. If those bacteria can be eliminated at the beginning of the chain, there are less likely to be problems caused by people handling food incorrectly in the home or the retail and catering trades. The agency will be actively involved in animal husbandry and welfare. I hope that I have said enough to give my hon. Friend the encouragement and comfort he needs. I thank him for raising these issues and hope that he will not press his amendment.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the positive tone of his reply. I acknowledge the good work of his Department in raising farm animal welfare standards. Much more progress must be made to eliminate the worst excesses of factory farming, about which we have been complacent for far too long. I appreciate that we can move only at the speed at which we can convince our EC partners to move, but I recognise that the Government are doing their best in this area. We have had a useful little debate. The Bill should not pass without some reference to the welfare of the millions of farm animals that are slaughtered every week. It is an issue of great concern to our constituents and to many of us on both sides of the House. To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I am a little nervous when I hear people say that we have the best standards in the world. Over the years, I have heard that applied to our police force, our judges and, with rather more accuracy, to our armed forces—indeed, to a whole range of our institutions. It smacks slightly of complacency, if he will forgive my saying so, and we should never be complacent. I acknowledge the points made by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about the need for local abattoirs to be properly regulated to prevent stressful lengthy journeys to slaughter. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances and clarifications. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 25, at end insert— '(4) Any authority making such a request shall immediately publish its reasons for so doing.'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

It is my pleasure to speak to these amendments. I intend to be as brief as possible in the interests of reaching some of the meatier subjects, if the House will forgive the pun, further down the amendment paper in the restricted time available. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to add a duty to any authority which makes a request to the agency to exercise its powers. The principal reason behind it goes back to one of the core themes of many of our amendments, which is to preserve the independence and ensure the transparency of the agency. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has been present throughout much of the debate and who has been a watchdog for this whole question of independence and transparency for the agency. At many points in the Standing Committee Hansard he pointed out the need to try at all costs to preserve the independence of the agency. That is why we believe that it is imperative that when a request is made for the agency to exercise its powers, the reasons should be stated immediately. In that way, consumers, producers and retailers will be able to see the open working of the agency. We feel strongly that if there is any delay in giving the reasons, or if the reasons are not given, for requesting the agency to exercise its power, its independence will be undermined. On other clauses, we have called for the reasons for the exercise of power to be clearly stated. For example, in clause 11 the power of entry to premises comes without the agency's having to state the reasons for going in. We understood the reason for the random visiting by foods standards officers and why the reasons could not be stated in that instance, but we believe that it is imperative that the reasons are published immediately where another authority—a Minister, a Department or a devolved authority—makes a request. We were pleased that amendment No. 12 was selected on Report because it deals with the huge powers contained in clause 21. We christened clause 21 the Martini clause. Anyone familiar with the advertising will know that the slogan for Martini was "Any time, any place, anywhere". We have some concern that the agency has been granted sweeping powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has wisely spotted the need to introduce some constraints and has succeeded in having the amendment selected. That gives us another chance to restrain the huge powers in clause 21. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has expressed to me its concern that no clear explanation of clause 21 was given in Committee. Perhaps we may hear from the Minister that some restraining powers will be imposed in connection with clause 21 that would give us some comfort. Amendment No. 12 would require the agency to make a report to Parliament on the exercise of its powers in each calendar year as part of its annual report. If it were accepted, it would bring greater accountability to the otherwise sweeping powers contained in the clause.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

Amendment No. 12, which is tabled in my name, would amend clause 21, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has just referred as the Martini clause. The Minister of State spoke earlier about the quality of the legislation that had gone through the House. He went so far as to say that some legislation that had reached the statute book was abysmal. I am anxious that we do not put on the statute book legislation that could be described as abysmal. We are all concerned about the amount of legislation that is reaching the statute book and, as a consequence, the amount of regulation to which business in this country is subject. We all want less regulation. We need to deal with the problem. The problem is that the Bill is another enabling Bill, despite all its good features. Whenever we put a Bill that can be described as enabling on the statute book, we open the floodgates of regulation from successive Ministers and Departments. Although the Bill is generally accepted to be good in many ways, it is yet another enabling measure, which will give future Ministers—indeed the present Minister—wide powers. Incidentally, I am sure that the House would want to pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he has steered the Bill through the various processes that he described earlier. We give him credit for the fact that he has used new procedures to ensure that there has been the fullest consultation at every stage. That is much appreciated. However, despite all the consultation and the Minister's best offices, this is an enabling Bill, which gives the Government enormous powers to do almost whatever they want. 7.30 pm The Minister is aware that, on Second Reading, I was critical of the fact that the Government were taking those unnecessary powers. I pointed out that it would be undesirable because the measure gives MAFF a blueprint to come back with further measures at any stage—"any time, any place", as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden says. Those measures will not be subject to the same scrutiny as the Bill. On Second Reading, I quoted the opening sentence of clause 21, which states: The Agency has power to do anything. I criticised that. The Minister responded by saying, in effect, that it was grossly unfair of me to have quoted only the first part of that sentence. However, if I now quote the full sentence, the Minister will agree that the sense is not changed in any way. It states: The Agency has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of its functions. For the sake of brevity on Second Reading, I did not use the whole sentence, but whether one uses only the first seven words or the whole sentence, it makes no difference. Obviously, if the agency has powers to do anything, such powers must be within its remit. I was not pretending for one moment that the Bill enabled the Government to do anything in any matter. It stands to reason that the provision applies only to the Bill. The Minister was being too sensitive in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, when he referred to my criticism of the fact that the Government had taken so much power. At this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, it will be difficult—if not impossible—to persuade Ministers to renounce or limit the Bill's powers. However, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to consider my amendment, which would provide for the Government to make a report to Parliament about the powers that they exercise under clause 21. The Minister should be sympathetic to the amendment; he is a democrat, and he shares our concern about the plethora of legislation that emanates from Government. This is not a party political point; during the past decade or so, Governments of all persuasions have been equally guilty in passing enabling legislation, which has triggered the plethora of regulation to which we all object. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment. It is supported by the Food and Drink Federation—the recognised umbrella organisation for many trade associations in the food and drink industry, although not all of them belong to it. In a circular letter, which I imagine has been sent to all Members of Parliament who are interested in the Bill, the federation says that it supports the objective of the amendment in seeking an annual report on the exercise of the agency's powers under clause 21 and believes that that should be included in the annual report that the agency is required, under clause 4, to make to Parliament. The Minister is a reasonable man and I know that he takes great pride in the Bill. It has been his baby and he has steered it all the way through its parliamentary process. He was there at its inception and, God willing, he will be there when it reaches the statute book. Such things as reshuffles intervene, but I hope that the Minister will survive the next reshuffle in his present office where, within the constraints that the overall direction of his Government impose, he has done a very good job. On behalf of my industry, I compliment the Minister on taking the time and the trouble to understand the industry. We do not underestimate his achievement. The Minister represents an urban constituency and it is unlikely that he knew much about agriculture, livestock and all the processes associated with them when he assumed his present role. However, the Minister has learned about them and the industry is grateful to him for doing so. With that background of knowledge and understanding and as a result of the educational courses he has undertaken, the Minister must recognise that the Government are taking unlimited powers that they currently do not need. If such powers were necessary, presumably they would be spelt out in the Bill. However, the Government have not done that. As they are taking draconian powers for reasons that are not obvious, the Government should return to the House at some stage—once a year is suggested—to report what has been done under this particular clause. On Second Reading, I was critical of other clauses in the Bill for exactly the same reason. It is hypocritical for politicians to sympathise with our constituents about the burden, cost and nuisance of legislation when we participate in debates on legislation such as this which will open the floodgates to even more regulation. On Second Reading, I referred to my support for the Food Safety Bill in 1990.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

I shall come directly to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament may consider legislation such as the Food Standards Bill but we do not always examine, scrutinise and criticise it in the way that we should. That is particularly true of new Members of Parliament. I was a new Member myself once, and I have kicked myself for not being more diligent in respect of the 1990 legislation to which I referred a moment ago that led to other legislation—to much of which I and others would have objected. That is a most important point for the House to understand. If we pass general legislation and put enabling Bills on to the statute book, we should not be surprised and should not complain if Departments then introduce many regulations that we had not foreseen. In conclusion, I make a final plea to the Minister to act with his characteristic even-handedness, fairness and understanding and accept the amendment.

Tessa Jowell (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, we had much debate in Committee about the independence of the agency as a non-ministerial Department. It might help the House if I reiterate the rules under which the agency will operate. In its day-to-day operation, the agency will be at arm's length from Ministers, and staff will be accountable to its chairman and members. It will have the unprecedented independence to publish the advice that it gives to Ministers. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the agency should be wholly independent of democratically accountable Ministers. Ministers will retain ultimate responsibility for policy and legislation, and it is right that they should do so, but they will turn to the agency for policy advice. The agency will be the Government's primary source of advice on food safety and standards. I am not convinced that the amendment is helpful, because Ministers will naturally explain to the agency why they are asking for advice, and the agency will have powers to publish any information in its possession, unless that is specifically prohibited by an enactment or Community obligations, or unless publication would make the agency in contempt of court. It would, therefore, be able to publish information about requests from Ministers. It is not, however, appropriate to place on Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments, the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the extra duty to publish immediately the reason why they are asking for advice. In sensitive matters, such as negotiations or legal proceedings, publication of the reasons for requesting advice might be premature. As we reflected in Committee, it might also be socially embarrassing. A Minister might seek advice from the agency about whether to attend a particular function, and if the answer were blunt, clearly embarrassment could result. Although the power can be used to ensure that advice is given, there is no way in which it can be used to dictate the content of that advice. It will be left to the agency to decide how to respond to requests for advice, information and assistance from Ministers. Records of the agency's decisions and the information on which they are based will be publicly available, which means that information about Ministers' requests to the agency and how those requests were dealt with will become publicly available. It is very important that we do not make Ministers' dealings with the agency so constrained that they simply find alternative sources of advice within existing Departments. Clearly, that would undermine one of the important purposes for which the agency is being established. 7.45 pm I turn now to amendment No. 12. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and put to rest some of his worst fears. I reiterate a point that was forcefully made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—that the clause does not give the agency unusual powers. The agency has only the powers given to it by the Bill, but it is very important technically and legally that the agency has the powers that it is given by the clause so that it can, for instance, enter into contracts to have its offices cleaned and arrange for stationery supplies. Everything that the agency does will obviously be constrained by the extent of its powers, which are clearly set out in the Bill, and the very important qualifications about the exercise of its powers, especially in relation to the assessment of risk and proportionality. The agency will publish an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament. We have made clear the importance that we, as Ministers, attach to the annual report, but I think that if we were to publish in the annual report a list of photocopying contracts and stationery orders, it would make dull reading. I finish by saying that, far from being anything as exotic as the Martini clause, clause 21 is the stuff of basic departmental and agency housekeeping. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Food and Drink Federation has contributed its views freely throughout a long process of consultation, and where appropriate, the Bill has been improved as a result of its representations. However, if we were to put on the face of the Bill the terms under which the agency would order its pencils and monitor its paper supplies, it would diminish the enormous importance that we attach to its overriding task of protecting public health and improving standards of food safety. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will withdraw the amendment.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I have carefully listened to the right hon. Lady's explanation. She stated the circumstances in which it might not be appropriate for reasons to be published immediately when the agency was requested to exercise its powers, and I can envisage circumstances in which that would be true. It was a bit of a let-down to hear the rather benign examples of purposes for which the exotically titled clause 21 would be used but, having listened to those explanations—

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend thought, as I did, that the Minister trivialised clause 21 by referring to the unnecessary procedure of having to report matters relating to office cleaning, stationery supplies, pencil orders, paper supplies and so on. However, clause 21(2)(d) talks about the instituting of criminal proceedings. We are not talking only about trivial items such as the ordering of pencils. This is a very serious point.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Obviously, I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) because we approach the point from the same direction, but in Committee, we received an explanation of the circumstances in which it might be necessary for the agency to institute criminal proceedings, and I refer him to Hansard on that point. The wording of clause 21 is difficult for a reader coming to it for the first time, but we accept that, as the Minister said in Committee, it should be read in conjunction with the other clauses. It is interesting to note, and worth placing on the record given the likelihood that we shall not reach Government amendment No. 28, that that amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons for giving directions to the Food Standards Agency in the event of a breach of duty. We welcome that amendment. It shows that the Government are sensitive to the point that there are times when it is paramount to make the reasons explicit and publish them. We accept that there may be other times when it is inappropriate—in particular, the timing may be inappropriate—to publish the reasons for requiring the agency to exercise its powers. For these reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I, too, listened carefully to the—

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I have withdrawn the amendment.

POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PERSONS CARRYING OUT OBSERVATIONS

Tessa Jowell (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 3, leave out from 'out' to end of line and insert 'any observations under section 10 specified in the authorisation. (1A) No authorisation under this section shall be issued except in pursuance of a decision taken by the Agency itself or by a committee, sub-committee or member of the Agency acting on behalf of the Agency.'.

Tessa Jowell (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

We had a full and detailed debate in Committee on the operation of clauses 11 and 14, to ensure specifically first, that only the agency, or one of its committees or sub-committees, or a member acting on behalf of the agency, authorised the use of powers of entry. Secondly, the Committee wished to ensure that the authorisation would be limited to a particular purpose if it was issued under clause 11—in relation to carrying out observations—which would be stated in the authorisation itself. We agreed that receipts for samples or copies of documents would be given on request. Clause 11 deals with powers of entry for the purposes of carrying out observations, and clause 14 deals with monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. The amendments bring the improvements that we debated in Committee in line with the powers set out in clauses 11 and 14. When considering clause 11, we explained in detail the way in which we expected the powers of entry to be used. We stressed that they were not to be used for enforcement purposes, but were about information gathering to inform the agency's policy development role.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The Minister will be aware of my interest in the case of her Department v. Aldridge, involving Duckett's cheese. Can I be reassured that the evidence that has been revealed through that long saga has been taken into account in drawing up the details of clause 11? The right hon. Lady will be aware that there are real concerns in the industry about the way in which enforcement powers in previous legislation have been used. I think that most people recognise that big sledgehammers were used to crack small nuts.

Tessa Jowell (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Health won the recent appeal following the judicial review. The judgment reflected the fact that there had been an imminent risk to health, and that the application of the powers that the Department and I took were proportionate in light of the degree of risk. Given that it was the first time that the power had been applied and that it has major consequences for businesses, we have sought to examine the effects of its operation. Let no one be in any doubt about the risk to health that was posed by the contamination of cheese by E. coli 0157—contamination that left a 12-year-old boy on dialysis and seriously ill in hospital. We acted, and we were right to act. The experience of operating the power informed our consideration of the way in which the agency should carry out observation as part of its surveillance function. I shall deal briefly with the amendments relating to clause 14. Authorisations issued under clause 14 do not need to state the purpose, because the power of entry is already clearly limited to monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 meet our commitment that receipts for samples or copies of documents should be provided on request. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 to clause 11 and amendments Nos. 26 and 27 to clause 14 are minor drafting changes. I explained in Committee that we would introduce drafting changes to clarify ambiguities. On several occasions in Committee, the Opposition proposed a code of practice governing the exercise of the powers. It was agreed that there should be clear rules governing the behaviour of authorised persons exercising powers of entry. With these Government amendments, the Bill will provide rules, which we expect to be supplemented by general guidance. In light of that, we do not see the need for a statutory code of practice. We agree that there should be guidance, and that that should be available to members of the public.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I shall be brief, as we are keen for discussion to proceed to the next set of amendments, which are a significant group. We welcome the Government's amendments, which respond to some of the concerns that we raised in Committee about the powers of entry. We are pleased that the ambiguities that we pointed out in the original drafting of clauses 11 and 14 will be resolved satisfactorily. The Government's amendments improve on the proposal for a code of practice. The Bill itself will make it clear how Food Standards Agency officers should conduct themselves upon entering commercial premises. It would be right to record the residual concern of the Food and Drink Federation about the confidentiality of information that might be collected when the officers enter premises. The fact that a receipt will be given, as we requested in one of our original amendments, should allay some of the fears about transparency. We are grateful for the Government's concessions and take some pride in having had a hand in amending the Bill to ensure that the powers being granted to the FSA are less likely to be abused in relation to commercial interests.

Tessa Jowell (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

May I clarify that point? It was one of the issues that we took on board following the Special Select Committee. Unofficial disclosure of commercially sensitive information collected in the course of observation will be an offence. That is clearly stated in the Bill.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We perfectly understand that, and we are pleased that that requirement extends also to anybody who might now accompany the authorised FSA officer. We asked for that and we are glad to see it. For the sake of total transparency in all our doings, I should like to record that, in expressing our gratitude for these concessions, we pushed our luck quite far in Committee. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that the Government's recognition of that might extend to inviting us to the party that traditionally follows the passage of a Bill through the House. I take this opportunity to record our gratitude for having received invitations to that party. It may be quite an historic occasion, and we record our thanks.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I rise briefly to welcome the amendments and say that they have made worth while the many hours—occasionally not very interesting hours—that we spent in Committee.

MONITORING OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 21, at end insert— '(6) In any case where the Agency itself or a body for which it is accountable is the enforcement authority, subsection (1) shall not have effect and the function of monitoring enforcement shall be held by the Secretary of State.'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister of State suggested that we might not reach this group of amendments, but I am pleased that we have, as it enables us primarily to discuss the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall not take a long time rehearsing the arguments because we spent some time on the matter in Committee. However, I have taken the opportunity to look again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate, and I have tried to address the issue in amendments Nos. 3 and 9. I shall come to amendment No. 18 in a moment. Amendment No. 3 turns on its head the approach that the Opposition previously adopted. which was to prevent the FSA taking over the MHS. The reason we do not want the two to be in cahoots is quite clear. We want a clear distinction between enforcement and the monitoring of that enforcement. We recognise that there will be times, in extremis, when the FSA will have to take on enforcement measures—if, for example, another authority fails in its duties; that is in the Bill and we accept it—but to take it on in that situation for, one assumes, a temporary period, is different from its being part and parcel of the agency's usual functions. In Committee, the Minister clearly said: The chief executive"— of the MHS— does not create policy; he receives policy instructions from MAFF. Likewise, he will receive them from the FSA staff'. That clearly indicates to me that there is a problem. The Minister went on to refer to the idea of the FSA being born out of the suspicion that the Ministry should not ride two horses and the paradox of a regulatory Ministry sponsoring the food and the farming industries. I accept that in the way in which he said it, but that paradox applies equally to the idea of the FSA setting some regulations, enforcing them through the MHS and then monitoring their enforcement. There are not many other walks of public life in which both the enforcement and the monitoring of the effectiveness of that enforcement are done by the same body.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

There is not much time to put this on the record, but the auditing of the MHS goes beyond the FSA. The EU Commission's Food and Veterinary Office and the state veterinary service, which is not part of the FSA, will all be involved in this function.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister makes precisely my next point. In Committee, he said: the MHS is accountable to EU inspectors, who can arrive with no warning. The inspections will be audited by the state veterinary service as well as by the veterinary public health unit of the joint food safety and standards group".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 July 1999; c. 299–300.] If all those bodies monitor the MHS, why on earth do we need the FSA as well?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

rose—

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall give the Minister time to reply; he does not need to intervene. I do not understand why it is necessary for the FSA to fulfil that role. The Minister worried members of the Committee when he said that the Government were still exploring the management arrangements between the FSA and the MHS. He spoke about Chinese walls of separation. We are not at all convinced that they will be as effective as they ought to be. Amendment No. 9 was effectively given to us by the Government in Committee when the Minister pointed out the implications of another amendment that I had tabled. He now has two opportunities to accept our argument in two different ways. If the Government are obsessed with pursuing the idea of putting the MHS with the FSA, they can do so as long as they leave the monitoring of enforcement with MAFF and with those other bodies to which he has referred. Amendment No. 3 would allow them to do that. Amendment No. 18, which relates to schedule 4, is designed to control the overweening power of the agency. The Minister for Public Health, who seems to have evaporated from the Front Bench, said that we have spent a lot of time talking about the independence of the agency. She is quite right: there is no contradiction between seeking to establish an independent agency and ensuring that it does not have excessive power. That amendment is designed to ensure that, in at least one area, the agency's power would be constrained. It would not be given the powers that Ministers have under the Food Safety Act 1990. Other brief contributions may be made, but I am sure that the Minister will have a moment or two to reply before we run out of time.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has told us that he was riding two horses; I believe he has jumped on the wrong one. We have supported the Conservatives in their contention that it is not appropriate to site the Meat Hygiene Service with the Food Standards Agency because its size is disproportionate to that of the agency, but I firmly believe that the FSA ought to have a role in monitoring and policy setting for all the enforcement agencies. If the FSA had been in existence a few years ago and had done the job properly, the MHS would never have had to be set up. It would not have to be taken away from local authorities because there would have been a mechanism in place for intervention, short of the nuclear option, as described by the Minister, of direct ministerial intervention. We cannot support the amendment because it takes the wrong direction. In time, if not tonight, I hope that the Minister will be able to describe how he has worked through the concept of separating the policy-setting function of the agency and the semi-autonomous role of the MHS in the execution of that function. It is absolutely vital that the FSA sets clear criteria for what it considers to be failure by an enforcement authority. It would be quite wrong for it to have powers that could be applied quite arbitrarily to, for example, a local standards agency or other enforcement agencies that are under local authority control. The criteria on performance must be clear, and one would expect warning systems so that an agency does not suddenly come down like a ton of bricks on an unsuspecting small district council that does not realise that it is under-performing. We cannot support the amendment although the spirit behind it was right, separating the Meat Hygiene Service from the Food Standards Agency. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has taken the wrong horse of the two that he might have taken.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I should like to make a serious attempt to respond to the debate. This is one of the most important groups of amendments, which we started on, if I recall correctly, at 8 o'clock. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is back. We have had the debates without him and made reasonable progress. There is no way I can do justice to the issue, which is important. I do not criticise the Opposition for raising their concerns, but I can make only general, rather than specific, comments. The prime reason for the Meat Hygiene Service and, indeed, the Dairy Hygiene Service being, effectively, an integral part of the agency is that they are 100 per cent. concerned with food safety, whereas the other agencies under MAFF, including the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate, are not exclusively related to food safety. They are out. They will remain as executive agencies, but with all the links to the agency.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

Will the Minister give way?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

No. The other thing that I want to make clear—I have lost count of how many times I said it in Committee, but it has to be said so that it is taken on board by those who look at our proceedings—is that there are no plans or agenda to create a national enforcement authority. That is the position. The Bill does not allow one to be set up. One could argue that if a local authority failed in its enforcement duties the powers are in the Bill to have that dealt with. That is not envisaged. It is not part of any hidden agenda, whatever anyone might say about how the Meat Hygiene Service was formed in the first place. In Committee I discovered that, in some quarters, there is an abiding hatred of the Meat Hygiene Service. As someone said a couple of days ago, there is a romantic attachment to the good old days, when 300 separate local authorities checked the abattoirs. At that time, there were 900 abattoirs. We inherited only 300—a few closed in the 18 years of Tory rule. As we saw in the public hearings of the Phillips inquiry, during those halcyon, romantic days of local authorities checking meat hygiene in abattoirs, there was an abject breakdown in the controls, which led to BSE infectivity going into the food chain, so it is not true that things were 100 per cent. perfect when 300 local authorities were dealing with the matter. With hindsight, I accept that the actions of the previous Government in setting up the Meat Hygiene Service were totally correct. There are no plans to devolve it back. Nevertheless, there is no agenda to take local authorities' role at any level—that of environmental health officers or trading standards officers. They are the front-line police throughout the food chain. We want to work in partnership with them. That is the way in which the Bill has been set up. We will make separate arrangements for the management reporting of the Meat Hygiene Service within the Foods Standards Agency and for the audit. I am convinced that we can do that. If it can be done in the private sector, with audit companies both carrying out internal and external audits of their clients and maintaining Chinese walls, we can do it here. If I had had more time, I could have put on the record some of the management mechanisms that we propose to introduce, but perhaps that can be done in another place. The genuine concerns that have been raised have been met by the content of the Bill and the way in which we intend the structures to operate in practice. There is still some work to do, but there are a few months in which to do it.

POWER OF ENTRY FOR MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ACTION

DIRECTIONS RELATING TO BREACH OF DUTY OR TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

CONSTITUTION ETC. OF THE AGENCY

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Appropriation accounts

Accounts of Agency relating to sums paid or appropriated under s.39(3)

Consolidated accounts

Accounts under s. 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921

Functions of Comptroller under s. 9 of the National Audit Act 1983

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Local Government Finance