Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill
House of Commons, 8 November 1999.
POWER TO CARRY OUT OBSERVATIONS
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 7.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
This group of amendments makes some minor clarifications to the scope of the power to carry out observations in clauses 10 and 11. It includes some important additional safeguards on the powers of entry in both clauses 11 and 14, which the Government agreed in response to concerns raised in the other place. As to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, at earlier stages in the House we debated the agency's need to gather representative information on food safety and related matters, subject to the limitations in the Bill and the agency's general duty to act proportionately. The amendments ensure that there are no technical gaps in the powers to carry out observations. The amendments include a reference to fish farms alongside the existing references to food, agricultural and animal feed businesses and premises. Although it was always intended that fish farms should be covered—because, as hon. Members know, shellfish can be a high-risk product—it was necessary to put the issue beyond doubt. The amendments also clarify the fact that the samples that may be taken during observations include samples from food sources, live animals and plants. The existing text was intended to cover this, but the amendment removes any doubt. As to amendments Nos. 3 and 7, we have always emphasised that the Bill's powers must be used reasonably and proportionately, with proper regard paid to the needs of businesses. The Bill has safeguards that provide for this, some of which were added following debate in Committee. We also gave assurances that the agency's officers would follow guidance to ensure that they behaved reasonably and followed the principles of better regulation. Therefore, the Government were happy to accept two additional amendments from the Earl of Radnor relating to the authorisations to exercise powers of entry to undertake observations or enforcement monitoring. They provide that authorisations given to use the powers of entry may include a requirement to follow particular conditions—for example, ensuring that the necessary hygiene precautions are taken, including wearing appropriate protective clothing. The Government have given a commitment that authorisations will, in practice, require the authorised officer to follow conditions equivalent to those already applicable to enforcement officers under code of practice 9, made under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That required officers to observe any reasonable food safety precautions that are required by the company or organisation under inspection. The amendments strengthen the Bill's existing safeguards, and I hope that the House will welcome them.
James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the amendments. We welcome clarification of food sources and samples and the further moves in the Bill to emphasise hygiene precautions. We support that sensible measure. However, I want to make a point about fish farming, relating not only to the fundamental question whether fish farming should be included in the Bill but to the concern expressed in another place that the Bill now refers simply to "fish farming", rather than "commercial fish farming". There are, of course, fish farms that produce fish for ornamental and amenity purposes, and not normally for food. When that concern was expressed in the other place, Baroness Hayman said that, because the Bill related to food safety, the measure obviously related only to commercial fish farms. However, having reflected on that, I hope that the Minister will give the matter a little more thought. There is no definition of the word "food" in the Bill, because it takes the definition used in the Food Safety Act 1990. The Government have resisted further definition, but for most people food is a matter of individual perception. Although we may not want to eat certain types of fish, people in other parts of the world do. It worries me that the amendment covers any fish farm, when it could be shown that some fish species were being used for food by a particular culture—we are a multicultural society these days. I accept that it is not the Government's intention to include within the Bill all types of fish farm, but I am concerned that the Bill does not include the description "commercial" or "fish for food" to narrow its scope to those fish farms that produce fish for human consumption.
Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)
We welcome the amendments and the inclusion of fish farms. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but I do not know of many sects or religions that might eat koi carp. On the other hand, I do know of people who catch trout that may well have been fish-farmed earlier in their existence. It makes sense to include fish farms in the Bill.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I have a small concern about the amendment. Although I welcome the addition of fish farming to the Bill, the definition goes too far and may potentially include fish that are too young. I understand that there are specialist breeding centres where the fish are spawned and, as small fry, are transported in tanks in their millions to the fish farms or breeding grounds. At that stage, the fish may be given foodstuffs, or canthazaxin or other chemicals. They are weighed as they begin to put on flesh and therefore become more suitable for human consumption. Of course, it is vital that they and their foodstuffs are monitored and checked, but I am not sure what would be the benefit to the Government or the Food Standards Agency of including the very earliest stages of the fish-breeding process. That is my simple point. It is not a strong point of principle. Rather, I am not sure of the merit of including those stages in the Bill. I would be happy if the Minister could explain the logic behind that part of the definition, which, in my reading of amendment No. 2, includes those early stages of fish breeding and rearing.
Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)
I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 7, and the biggest problem facing many abattoirs, which is the poor quality of the staff, many of whom have come from Spain and do not speak English very well. In an abattoir in my area, a young Spanish fellow attended the dressing of a carcase, and believing that it was that of a bullock, said that the spine should be taken out. The carcase was that of a pig. Such ignorance among many young vets who come in to make up numbers, simply because the word "vétérinaire" has been mistranslated by officials, is causing grievous problems in many abattoirs. I receive numerous letters from abattoirs on the subject. One letter states that a study has shown that the largest single cause of meat contamination was the inspection process in the slaughterhouse. In another abattoir, the strictest enforcers of hygiene standards are the customers—the men from the supermarkets—which is as it should be. They found that the inspectors in that abattoir were not wearing clean overalls, were going from one designated zone to another and were using contaminated tools. I welcome amendment No. 7, as it is essential that vets understand the basic principles of hygiene. I regret that some of those in abattoirs do not.
Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)
I welcome the inclusion of fish farming. For us in Scotland, fish farming by and large means salmon farming. It is an important industry employing thousands of people in rural communities, but the licensing of such farms has caused considerable consternation among our pelagic, demersal and shellfish fishing communities. It is therefore important that the quality standards that exist in the fish—generally salmon—farms are maintained at a high level, and it is right that there should be inspection of those farms.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
Most of the comments on this group of amendments relate to the amendment on fish farms. I thought I heard one of my colleagues unkindly suggest that some of the comments amounted to red herrings. Fish farming is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out, because of the number of fish farms and the employment that they provide for increasing numbers of people. My understanding is that ornamental fish farms would not be covered by the provision, because the powers of entry can be used only to carry out the agency's responsibilities—that is, for food safety and other consumer interests in relation to food. I recognise that the inclusion of fish farms has been welcomed. It makes sense that that should be specifically stated in the Bill, as hon. Members have pointed out. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to amendment No.7. I am pleased that he welcomed the amendment, although some of his comments were curious. The people who have powers of entry must respect conditions of hygiene. It is an important issue, but some of the fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed should be covered by other parts of the Bill dealing with the agency's responsibility for training and standards of staff working in such establishments.
MONITORING OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
The Government accepted these two amendments, which were tabled by Cross-Bench and Opposition peers. Lords amendment No. 6 relates to the requirement on the agency to report in its annual report on its own performance as an enforcement authority. That relates primarily to the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was extensively debated in the House and by the Special Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). 11.45 pm The Government have made it clear throughout that they believe that it is right that the MHS, which is responsible for enforcement in a key area of food safety, should be part of the agency, but we also made it clear that we believe that it should be subject to rigorous audit of its performance—that point was made strongly by my predecessor—and that its officers should behave reasonably, in accordance with the principles of better regulation. Amendment No. 6 will put in the Bill the clear requirement that the agency should include in its report to Parliament information on its activities where it acts as an enforcement authority in relation to specific standards which will be set for its performance, and in relation to specific objectives and practices included in the agency's statement of objectives and practices, which, as hon. Members know, is required by clause 22. We have made it clear that those objectives will include compliance with the better regulation principles. We believe that that will contribute to greater openness about the performance of the MHS, which has been of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I therefore hope that the House will agree that the amendment is helpful and will improve the Bill. In a similar vein, amendment No. 15 requires that the agency's agreed statement of objectives and practices be laid before Parliament and the devolved legislatures. That will make a helpful contribution to openness. We expect the agency to consult interested bodies on its statement before it is finalised. I stress that the amendment was tabled by the Opposition—by Baroness Byford—and the Government believe that it will improve the Bill.
James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)
The right hon. Lady is right: the amendment represents an improvement to the Bill—obviously we support it, because it was tabled by my noble Friend—but I must tell her that the improvement is tiny. It goes nowhere towards addressing the real concerns expressed by Conservative Members throughout the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration about the MHS and the dual role of enforcement and monitoring authority that the Food Standards Agency will play. It does not tell us how the two roles will be separated in practice—nor have the Government produced any convincing reason for their rejection of the advice of the Special Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), to which the Minister referred. We also need to question MHS charges. At present, as I understand it, the Minister has to approve all charges—at least her predecessor regularly told the House that he had not yet approved any rises, so we assume that he had the power to do so if he needed to. If the MHS is to go into the FSA, what controls will there be on charging? If the annual report is published in the way described in the amendment, will it include, for example, separate MHS accounts and a schedule of charges and how they have been arrived at so that people can see transparently what is going on? Given that a slaughterhouse is closing every week under this Government, it is time that we had much more transparency in respect of the charges made for meat hygiene inspection. The House will be aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself has announced studies of comparative costs and charges in abattoirs in other countries. If that matter is to be dealt with by the MHS, is the right hon. Gentleman wasting his time? Will he have any powers to do anything, even if he uncovers evidence showing, as we believe, that British abattoirs are being treated unfairly? If not, and if the Meat Hygiene Service is to have total control over its charging mechanisms, it is essential that it be transparent and that the report for which amendment No. 6 provides covers all those possibilities. We may then be able to put an end to the constant arguments about the level of charges. Under this Government, however, I do not see that happening.
Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the Minister both talked about the need for transparency. The Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency will deal with some of the most sensitive issues relating to the food chain. The Minister said that the report would be published and laid before Parliament. She knows, however, that a great number of statutorily required reports are laid before Parliament, but that no effort is made to debate their content. Given the importance of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the importance of the work of the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service, will the Minister assure us that the report will not just be laid before Parliament, but tabled for a proper debate in Government time so that we can examine many of the sensitive issues that my hon. Friend outlined?
Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)
Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the creation of the Food Standards Agency, because we all see the need to restore confidence in British food. To achieve that, it is essential that we have openness and transparency. That is why I welcome the amendments. The annual report should not just look back at the events of the previous year, but should look forward and give us a business plan and a budget for the following year. One of our concerns is that the Meat Hygiene Service could take over all the energies and resources of the Food Standards Agency and, so, defeat the very purpose for which the agency was set up. Will the Minister assure us that the report relating to the Meat Hygiene Service will show clearly the resources that the service will use, so that we can see that the other arm of the agency is protected?
Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I am beginning to wonder whether the amendment is totally fatuous. The more I listen to the words of praise echoing around the Chamber about it, the more it occurs to me that it will be utterly useless. The clue to my suspicion came from the Minister, who said that it would contribute to openness. That immediately makes me suspicious, as it is completely meaningless. Matters became even worse when the right hon. Lady said that she expected the agency to consult. There seems to be no obligation on the agency to consult in this part of the process; it is simply a ministerial expectation. That is not good enough. As if that were not bad enough, the amendment will oblige a copy of the statement approved by the agency to be laid before Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly"— "laid before", no more. One can only conclude that there will be a process, possibly of consultation—we do not know; the Minister hopes so, but nothing obliges it—and the agency will reach its own conclusions about its objectives. There will be no outside check on that process. Then, in a grand gesture of openness, the agency will lay its conclusions before Parliaments and Assemblies. Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), there the process ends. A report, about which no consultation was needed, is laid before Parliament. We all know that that could well be a completely meaningless part of the process. In my more negative moments—there are few, I admit, but every now and again, during debates such as this, a bit of negativity arises—I ask myself what all this means, and where it is leading us. Will it advance the process in any way? Here is yet another piece of paper—another document. No doubt it will be available in the Vote Office; no doubt Members will be able to apprise themselves of its contents. But will the process go any further? If my right hon. Friend's proposal is not taken up, and if the Minister cannot give us an absolute undertaking that something will complete the process, it will have no meaning. Why are we all gathered here, praising the amendment—which originated in another place—when, on the face of it, it has no meaning whatever? It constitutes yet another layer of bureaucracy: yet another part of the process, which will add nothing to the ensuring of food safety—or, I think, to the role that the House likes to think it takes upon itself in scrutinising the Government and holding them accountable. There is no provision for scrutiny, or for holding to the Government to account.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
I do not know why my right hon. Friend is worried. Like all the other annual reports produced by quangos, this report will be sent to my right hon. Friend as a matter of course, because he is a Member of Parliament. He will pass it quickly across his desk into the nearest wastepaper bin, where it will remain unread by numerous Members of Parliament. What is the point?
Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
May I make a plea, following my hon. Friend's remarks? I do not wish to receive a copy of the document; I should be very distressed if I did. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has the gall to suggest that it might be sent by e-mail. I do not know what that is, and I do not know whether I would receive any of it either. What I do not want is for my time to be wasted by my being sent a copy of a document that has so little meaning. If it stops at the Vote Office, at least I will have discretion in regard to whether I wish to peruse it. That would be something. My plea is this: unless the Minister can reassure us that the amendment will have greater meaning than I have suggested, I think we should reject it. It will provide for an additional layer of bureaucracy and an additional unnecessary procedure that will do nothing to reassure the public about the safety of our food.
Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)
The Minister described the amendment as an improvement. I am not sure that it is an improvement; I see little substantial difference between the original subsection (3) and the present subsection (3). Indeed, the key word "performance" in the old subsection is left out of the new subsection. What really concerns me, however, is the Minister's attempt to defend the amendment on the ground that it strengthens the audit of the Meat Hygiene Service. I think that she used the words "as a regulatory practice". In my view, the real difficulty lies in the fact that we are allowing one regulatory authority to approve the regulatory performance of another. In other words, the audit will not be independent. Feed regulators will be assessing the performance of a food regulation agency, namely the Meat Hygiene Service, and I do not think that that is satisfactory. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. I would have liked to see some kind of independent audit of the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, not least because it is the key service in relation to charging. When, some years ago, I visited the headquarters of the service in York, I was struck by its complete independence in regard to fees. It was for the Minister to decide in the end, but it was entirely for the MHS to propose. The amendment does nothing to protect the service's clients against the increases in charges which we have seen in recent years, and could go on seeing. Surely we need a much more independent audit to establish whether the MHS is providing good value for money, and the good regulation that the Minister and the House want.
Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)
The Meat Hygiene Service reminds me of a tax farm under the Bourbons. It has a free remit to extend its area of operation and the more it extends that area of operation, the more money it can raise. I have a copy of its report for last year. It is beautifully printed and expensively produced—and glib. It has a list of targets and—surprise, surprise—a list of results. Each one has the stamp "Achieved". Further on there is a glossy photograph of an employee called John, who has worked for the Meat Hygiene Service since its inception. He says: The Meat Hygiene Service training courses and videos have enabled me to perform my enforcement duties with confidence. This, combined with good working relations at the plants I visit has enabled to maintain high standards of hygiene and strict compliance with legislation. That is entirely different from the world portrayed in letters that people have sent me. One letter from an abattoir says that its charges have increased from£300 per year to£17,000 per year. That means inspection fees of£180 per tonne. The letter says: Were we a large, full-throughput plant, the comparative cost would be around£1 per tonne. Another letter says: we are charged almost£40 for these people and they know as much about a turkey as I know about a llama, it makes you want to 'spit', especially when you are aware that the government are seemingly hell bent on increasing these charges, some by as much as a staggering 80 per cent. We had at our site one particular Iberian who found out after almost two months that the turkeys we exclusively process weren't the chickens he thought they were, and there are many more equally ludicrous examples. The report serves no purpose. It is purely a publicity pamphlet for the quango. We need an independently audited report, properly debated in Parliament. I should also like a statement on the appeal mechanisms. We hear that in informal discussions with the industry the Government are coming round to the idea of having an appeal mechanism. As we said in Committee, it is not good enough to have the Food Standards Agency in charge of the Meat Hygiene Service. The gamekeeper cannot also act as the poacher. What is the audit mechanism to ensure an independent report? What appeal mechanism is there to allow crushed, benighted little firms to avoid being put out of business by the quango? The number of abattoirs has gone down in the past couple of years from 4,000 to 350. That has happened partly because of the quango.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I am somewhat surprised by the content of some of the speeches that I have just heard, because the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), speaking for the Official Opposition, said rather grudgingly that this was a small amendment. Other Opposition Members have described it as fatuous—I think that that was the expression used by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—or meaningless. That is surprising, because the amendment was moved eloquently by Baroness Byford in the other place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seems to think it extraordinary that he should be expected to support an amendment put forward by his party. I find it surprising that he does not support it. Many of the questions that hon. Members have raised were answered by the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in the debate on 22 July. However, given some of the questions that have been raised, it is important to repeat some of the points that he made. He spelled out the separation of roles for the audit of the Meat Hygiene Service. That will be achieved in a number of ways. The veterinary public health unit, which audits the Meat Hygiene Service, will be separated within the Food Standards Agency. There will also be a separate supervisory committee. There are also audits by the European Commission and the state veterinary service, as well as the financial audit by the National Audit Office. I am rather surprised that Opposition Members did not refer to these. On controls on charging, charges will still be set ultimately by Ministers, as now. Any changes to the charges will be subject to consultation, as now.
David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)
Could my hon. Friend assure me that where the private sector is employed by the Meat Hygiene Service, that also will be subject to audit and account?
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
As far as I know, it should be. However, the best thing would be for me to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library, so that he knows the exact position. On charging, I must stress that the Meat Hygiene Service will continue to produce its own separate accounts—a point raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). Of course the House will be able to debate the annual report—and any of the reports contained within that—if it wishes. Owing to the interest across the House in the work of the Meat Hygiene Service, it is obvious that Members will use existing methods to raise concerns and to make sure that the issues presented to them in annual reports can be debated fully. The Meat Hygiene Service will have to produce its own accounts, and account for the way in which it has used its resources. The agency will consult on its clause 22 statement. These measures all provide excellent opportunities to deal with the points raised by hon. Members.
POWER OF ENTRY FOR MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
The amendment, and the others in the group, are all technical drafting amendments which deal with Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill. The Bill has been passing through Parliament at a time of considerable uncertainty over the future of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. As the agency will operate in Northern Ireland, it is important that we review the text of the Bill at the latest possible moment to ensure that the references to Northern Ireland are all correct. That is why the Government made these changes in the House of Lords, which were accepted. One important amendment in the group is No. 35, which ensures that the powers will take proper effect—both under the existing transferred power, and afterwards, once the devolution settlement has come into force and the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister have taken up their powers. Most of the other amendments are minor drafting points that clarify the references to Northern Ireland legislation. The amendments to the schedules make changes to Northern Ireland legislation to parallel proposed amendments to existing Great Britain legislation which are already contained in the schedules to the Bill. In particular, the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be amended to parallel amendments to the Food Safety Act 1990, and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be amended to reflect changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and to provide consistency. Although the amendments include a lot of new text, they do nothing new in policy terms. They will simply make equivalent changes to Northern Ireland legislation. As a whole, therefore, they will ensure that, when the agency is established, there is a consistent legislative framework in place across the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the devolution settlement is fully in place.
PUBLICATION ETC. BY THE AGENCY OF ADVICE AND INFORMATION
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
This group of amendments is composed largely of minor drafting points. However, I should like to comment briefly on Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which were tabled by the Opposition in another place on Report, and agreed to by the Government. The Government made it clear that our intention was that the Data Protection Act 1998 should apply, so that in using its powers to publish under clause 19, the agency should not be able to disclose personal data. The amendments make a useful clarification of that point. The inclusion of a special reference to the 1998 Act makes it absolutely clear that the agency will be subject to the data protection principles that the Act contains, and that the agency must, therefore, maintain the personal privacy of individuals about whom it has obtained information in the course of its work. As I said, the amendments largely concern technical drafting points. Lords amendments Nos. 14, 19, 28 and 29 do not change the Bill's substance at all. Lords amendment No. 42, however, makes it absolutely clear that the agency will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration by adding the ombudsman to the list of bodies covered by the PCA.
DIRECTIONS RELATING TO BREACH OF DUTY OR TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
This group of amendments includes some important technical points arising from devolution. As we have explained throughout the Bill's passage, the agency is being established as a United Kingdom body, with the aim of achieving across the United Kingdom a consistent approach to food safety. However, food safety and standards are a devolved matter. We therefore have to ensure that the Bill correctly reflects the position following the devolution legislation, and takes account of the appropriate devolved responsibilities.
James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)
The Bill must be right in addressing the devolution issue. I should simply like to challenge the Minister on Lords amendment No. 16, which would amend clause 24. Clause 24 itself refers to clause 23, and the fact that the powers would be given to Scottish Ministers if it appeared to them that there has been a serious failure by the Agency …to comply with section 23". Clause 23(2) itself states that The Agency, in considering whether or not to exercise any power, or the manner in which to exercise any power, shall take into account (among other things)— (a) the nature and magnitude of any risks to public health". That provision brings us immediately to the current crisis of confidence over the Government's policy on beef on the bone. If devolution does what the Bill says, if the arrangements are separate for each country and if the Lords amendment gives Scottish Ministers competence to consider whether there has been a serious failure by the Agency to take into account the nature and magnitude of those risks, what will happen after the agency is created? Now, despite the advice that he has received from the chief medical officer, the English Minister refuses to lift that absurd ban, on the basis that his Scottish counterpart says that he does not think it safe for Scots to eat beef on the bone. That is the price of devolution. 12.15 am It seems odd that the Bill establishes, and a Government amendment reaffirms, Scottish competence to deal with such issues and to take into account the nature and magnitude of the risks to public health, which is the very core of the beef on the bone issue, while what the Government are actually doing—or rather, failing to do, which is to lift the absurd ban—shows a total disregard of the principles in the Bill.
Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)
In relation to Lords amendment No. 16, I have every confidence in the Scottish medical officer of health—just as I have every confidence in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament—to ensure that the Bill and the regulations are administered fairly and effectively. However, what would happen if Ministers in the Scottish Parliament expressed concern about the way in which fish farms were inspected by the agency? A few minutes ago, I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how important that industry is to our coastal and island communities. What powers does the Scottish Parliament possess to change or introduce regulations governing such access to fish farms or other Scottish enterprises? We may require some sort of concordat, because Scottish Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament may have far greater knowledge of the local conditions surrounding such industries than do Ministers or Members here—with the obvious and estimable exception of Scottish Members of this Parliament.
Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)
I welcome the amendments in so far as they clarify the position of the Scottish Parliament. None the less, I hark back to what I said on Second Reading—that if Scotland had been allowed to legislate for itself on food standards, neither the amendments nor the original clauses would have been necessary in the first place. The Government have embarked on devolution and the House has devolved the oversight of food standards, yet they do not seem prepared to accept the consequences and let the devolved Parliaments legislate in their own way. So be it. They have chosen this route, so I welcome the amendments. To follow what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, I do not believe that anything in the Bill specifically states that the Scottish Parliament may in due course choose to legislate separately on such matters.
Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)
Nineteen minutes past 12 in the morning is not perhaps the most felicitous time to ask this question, so I preface it by saying that the Minister may wish to reply by putting a note in the Library. A judgment on beef on the bone has been made in the sheriff court in Scotland—a judgment that is very awkward from the Government's point of view. Ministers know that that judgment opens a Pandora's box of problems, so if they cannot comment off the top of their head, will they put a note in the Library about their attitude to the sheriff court's finding?
Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)
I shall not enter into the beef on the bone debate, but I invite the Minister to clarify the mechanism that will be used. As I understand it, the Food Standards Agency will give advice to Ministers and will publish that advice. I imagine that the relevant Ministers in the relevant nations will be free to reject that advice, or to accept it. If that is the case, clearly it would be acceptable to have beef on the bone in Wales, but not in England—I am not sure what the Scots want to do.
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)
We should have it everywhere.
Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)
That is a personal opinion. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on my point.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I have been somewhat surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the debate on what is a technical amendment. The amendment relates to Executive devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 and we cannot reopen the debate on the devolution settlement, as some of the contributions appeared to try to tempt me to do. Legislative responsibilities for food safety and standards, including beef on the bone, were already devolved by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The issue of beef on the bone has been debated several times and will doubtless be raised again in various ways. Amendment No. 16 is simply a technical amendment which will ensure that Scottish Ministers have power of direction on matters within their devolved competence, including matters that are the subject of Executive devolution, as well as directly under the Scotland Act 1998. It will make no significant difference to the powers of direction, but it is necessary for consistency within the general framework of devolution in Scotland. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a felicitous sense of timing, but my understanding is that the case he mentioned is still before the courts and, therefore, I cannot comment on it even though he tempted me to do so. Whether I am relieved about that, I will keep to myself. We have had an interesting debate, but it has ranged much wider than the technical nature of the amendment would suggest. None the less, I hope that the amendment will gain the approval of the House.
Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)
For all the levity, the case I mentioned is a serious issue. When the courts finally come to a judgment, MAFF will have to make a statement on it.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I was not commenting on the seriousness or otherwise of the issue. I was simply saying that it is currently before the courts.
Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)
As I understand Lords amendment No. 22, it would allow the Scottish Parliament to confer an additional function of its choosing on the Food Standards Agency, which may be exercisable in Scotland, but presumably, once conferred, may also be exercisable in England. Can the Minister explain the amendment?
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
Lords amendment No. 22 is intended simply to remove any doubt that may arise about the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to modify the functions of the agency in their own areas of jurisdiction, which have already been established. That does not necessarily mean that Scotland or Northern Ireland would do something different from England and Wales. However, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legislative competence on food safety and standards matters, we need to ensure that there is no doubt about their ability to make changes to the agency's functions which have been agreed across the UK.
Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)
I shall speak to amendment (a) with confidence and with the full support of the National Farmers Union, which has written to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) saying that the amendment would open the door to better country-of-origin labelling, and that that would assist consumers to buy British, on the basis of quality, origin, taste and safety. The amendment would also encourage action better to inform consumers, through labelling and otherwise, about how the product has reached the supermarket shelf. Farmers producing to the high welfare standards required by British law in the pig industry, for example, could then command the premium that they well deserve. We urge the Government to grab this opportunity, at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House, to give the Food Standards Agency the power to regulate the sourcing of food in this country. On repeated occasions during the Bill's progress, Opposition Members have tried to get the question of labelling incorporated into the FSA. It seems ironic that one of the key reasons for bringing the agency into being is to protect public health from food risks, yet failure to give the agency responsibility for food sourcing and the labelling of food will simply prevent members of the public from protecting themselves against real or perceived risks. That is why we urge the Government most strongly to consider accepting the amendment, even at this very late stage. The fact that the co-director of the Food Commission has described present labelling arrangements as a shambles should serve to encourage the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go further than his most recent statements about changing the guidelines on labelling. Indeed, speaking on BBC1's "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 24 October, he said: I do think if people check where the product is sourced from they can make informed choices. However, people cannot do that. At the height of the Belgian dioxin scare, my nanny bought chicken breast from the local supermarket for my children's tea. From the label, there was no way of knowing where the meat had come from, so I followed the Minister's good advice of "when in doubt, throw it out". The Minister went on, in his interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, to state: My personal choice is to look for the Meat and Livestock Commission's 'Assured British' label". Conservative Members wholeheartedly support that scheme, but its impact is limited. Out of curiosity, I went to my local supermarket and hunted—in vain—for British smoked back bacon. There was Dutch and Danish bacon of that variety, as well as many packs with no country of origin identified at all. To work, the Assured British scheme must be backed by statute. That is one of the strong reasons why we are looking for the incorporation of labelling into the work of the Food Standards Agency. The weakness of the Minister's announcement of 27 October about amending the guidelines is that it does not place any legal obligation on retailers to follow the recommended good practice regarding labelling as to country of origin. Without some extra obligation, as opposed to mere advice, there must be doubt about how effective the proposed changes will be. I hope that the Government will make the concession implied in the amendment and give the very important responsibility for the sourcing of food to the Food Standards Agency. Failure to do that will lead us to press the amendment to a vote.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I support amendment (a), although, as I am no curmudgeon, I must point out that the Government have been responsive to many points made here and in the other place. They have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, but the amendment asks them to go one step further. The amendment qualifies the definition of the interests of consumers in relation to food, a concept referred to throughout the Bill, notably in clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8. It defines the work of the agency in protecting the public from risk, developing policies, providing advice and information and obtaining, compiling and keeping under review such information. It is right that the agency should take account of the sourcing of food when considering those matters. To persuade me that that should not be stated in the Bill, the Minister may suggest that it is unnecessary because the point is already covered. If that is so, why is amendment No. 25 felt necessary, as it, too, defines the terms within which advice should be given? Alternatively, the Minister may suggest that amendment (a) might prejudice the agency's work. I cannot accept that, as the amendment would provide an important adjunct to the agency's core work. A further suggestion might be that the amendment would not be in the interests of consumers, an idea with which I would have to differ most strongly. It is greatly in the interests of consumers that they should know the source of food. It is a happy coincidence that the interests of consumers and producers are the same in this case. The Minister has mentioned the pig industry, but one of the major reasons for that industry's parlous state is the high welfare standards that prevail in the United Kingdom. Those standards are quite proper, but they are not matched in the pig industries of our principal competitors abroad, and our pig producers are therefore at a constant commercial disadvantage in the supermarkets if consumers cannot make a choice informed by knowledge of the source of the food and the conditions under which it was produced. In the interests of consumers, producers and transparency, we should avoid the type of confusion on which there have been recent exchanges during Question Time. Earlier this month, I pointed out that St. Ivel Shape yoghurt—not a product that I buy regularly—is made in France while Carte D'or ice cream is made in Gloucester. How is the consumer supposed to understand that?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. St. Ivel yoghurt is made in my constituency, at Wootton Bassett.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
St. Ivel yoghurt is made in many places, and the brand to which I have referred is made in France. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. It is a tragedy that even an hon. Member who represents the area where a product is made may not be aware that it is also sourced from another country, but that fact highlights the very difficulty that the consumer faces when he or she goes to the supermarket. I sometimes do the shopping, rather than sending a nanny to do it, and I, like many people, find labelling confusing. If the Minister cannot respond adequately to these points, I fear that we shall support amendment (a), which is important to our primary producers.
Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)
I wish to make two brief points following the convincing argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I believe in free trade, and it is terribly important that people should be told the truth. However, as one of the older Members in the House, I can recall other occasions on which we have discussed proposals that seemed sensible, sound and absolutely super, only to find to our horror that we could not in fact put them into practice. In such cases, we have ended up spending millions of pounds in compensation. I remember Members waving their Order Papers over the question of which ships were allowed to fish under the British quota. We all thought it was splendid, but now it is costing us a lot of money. I have a simple question for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Minister: are we allowed to do this sort of thing? Sadly, I find that in Parliament these days, there are many things that we would like to do but are not allowed to do because, if we did, we would be fined horrendous sums or put in the equivalent of a Euro-prison. I shop in a store called Asda, of which hon. Members may have heard. I always intend to buy New Zealand lamb but, unfortunately, I am not allowed to, not because of labelling but because of National Farmers Union pressure. The NFU is so concerned about overproduction that we are not allowed to buy from New Zealand any more. That is sad because whenever we have been in trouble, our friends from New Zealand have always been there to help us. I have a horrible feeling that our basic problem is overproduction, not labelling. There is so much food. We are producing more and more, but, sadly, people are eating less and less. I am told that the continentals eat 2 per cent. less every year. The crucial question is whether we are allowed to label continental food according to its origin. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very pro-British and made it abundantly clear that he did not want to buy any more French food. The trouble is that, as I understand it, we are not allowed to determine whether food comes from France, so it will be hard to help him. I hope that my hon. Friends will not end up in another horrible mess where we have to pay more Euro-fines. Let us find out whether we are entitled to label food as coming from France, Germany or Italy. I understand that, under a derogation, we are allowed to say whether something comes from Britain or outside the European Economic Community, but not to give people the opportunity of knowing which part of the EEC something comes from. My point may seem minor, but bearing in mind the horrendous fines that we have had to pay and the undermining of our freedom to decide things in this House, before we do something that we know to be sound, sensible and reasonable and that would support a freedom, let us find out whether we are allowed to do it. One of the great tragedies in this House is that we spend a great deal of time talking about things that we are not allowed to do. We have debates on fishing or the age of homosexual consent, over which we have no power at all. Let us not make another blunder. Before taking the final plunge and approving this superb amendment, which was tabled for the best of reasons, let us find out if we can do it.
Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. In a previous debate, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food highlighted the importance of having meaningful labelling of our food. That must mean a statement of its source. Labelling should state the country of origin of food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, the public need to know so that they can make informed choices between, for example, beef fed in this country on natural rations and that from cattle that we are told are fed on sewage sludge elsewhere, or between pigmeat produced in this country to high animal health and welfare standards and that produced in countries where standards are much lower. Not only do the public need to know, they have a right to know where their food was produced. While I am sure that the Government will try to tighten the present labelling regulations, if they stop short of showing the country of origin on the product, they will not be serving the public interest properly. In the same earlier debate, the Government said that on issues of animal welfare, Parliament had listened and legislated and reflected what public opinion wanted in the legislation. That was democracy at work—the people told us what they wanted; Parliament reacted accordingly and legislation followed. At present, because there is heightened interest in food, the British people want to know the country of origin of the food that they eat. In other words, the same conditions apply. The same people who wanted meat to be produced from animals bred under higher welfare standards now want products to be labelled with the country of origin. Unless the Government intend to suspend the rules of democracy, they should accept the amendment.
Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)
Interesting though it is to know the country of origin of the food on the shelves of our stores, what the consumer wants is an assurance that the food is fit to consume—whatever the country of origin. What assurances can my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give the House that any food—whether in the supermarkets or in the corner shop—meets those standards? That is the best way to give the consumer confidence that the food is fit to eat; it is also the best way to ensure that British farmers are competing on a level playing field.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I am not surprised that amendment (a) and amendment No. 25 have provoked a lively debate. I know full well that Members on both sides of the House take a keen interest in the issue of labelling. I understand and sympathise with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) when she introduced amendment (a). She and I are anxious to examine labels when we shop. Since taking on my present portfolio, I have become most concerned not only about labelling but about its accuracy, and about the problems caused by misleading labelling.
Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)
If the right hon. Lady has been into supermarkets, she will be aware that, before the small packs are put on to the shelf, the product usually arrives in a large pack. There is much scope for someone in the back of the shop to decide what label to put on the packs. I hope that the Food Standards Agency will examine exactly what is put on the labels after the main pack has come into the supermarket.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
It is extremely clear from our debates on the matter that the Food Standards Agency is able to consider labelling generally and its importance to the consumer, both in terms of freedom of choice—a matter mentioned by several hon. Members—and to avoid consumers being misled by labels. During the passage of the Bill, many examples of the problems of misleading labelling were given by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by Members in the other place. Arguments about the dangers of inadequate labelling—especially of substances that could provoke allergies—were well and strongly made during the debate in the other place. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Meriden did not give the Government more credit for accepting the amendment tabled in the other place by the Baroness Byford, the Opposition spokesperson. To her credit, she was extremely active in promoting the labelling issue.
James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)
It was the Government's amendment.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says that it is the Government's amendment, but the amendment to which I referred was tabled by the Opposition in the other place. The amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Meriden is a further amendment to that amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not welcome it more enthusiastically. I am grateful that hon. Members of other parties recognise how active the Government have been in respect of labelling.
James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)
For the record, the amendment was tabled by Baroness Hayman, whose speech appears at column 909—I do not have the exact date—of that part of the House of Lords' consideration of the Bill. It might have been tabled in response to pressure from Conservatives, but the wording is the Government's, which is why we want to amend it.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the amendment was the initiative of Baroness Byford, to whom I give credit. It is true that she agreed it with the Government, but for the Opposition now to stand back from the amendment strikes me as incredible. The least that the hon. Member for Meriden could do is give more generous recognition to the way in which the Government bowed before the concern expressed in the other place. The Conservatives have only discovered an enthusiasm for labelling in opposition. The Labour party has been enthusiastic and active on the issue both in opposition and in government. That is the clear difference between us. Ministers have explained on numerous occasions that the Food Standards Agency will be responsible for policy and advice on labelling matters to Ministers and the public. We are entirely satisfied that the Bill provides the necessary powers for the agency to take a full and active role in that matter, through its role in protecting the interests of consumers in relation to food. When we accepted the ideas advanced by Baroness Byford in another place, we did so in a way that was consistent with the wording of the regulation-making power in section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That is important if we are not to create confusion or uncertainty about the scope of the agency's role in that matter. The Opposition amendment to which the hon. Member for Meriden spoke would expand our amendment and create inconsistency within the legislation in respect of the main regulation power relating to labelling. Therefore, we believe that it is inappropriate. I understand the concern expressed by various hon. Members about improved country-of-origin labelling on foods. The Government, too, are concerned and we are active at European level in that respect. That answers in part the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). However, labelling is not an area in which we have a free hand, as the hon. Gentleman hinted and as the Opposition Front Benchers have not been prepared to recognise in their approach to the amendment. We need to get agreement at European level on various aspects of labelling, although voluntary labelling is possible. Given the vigilance of the hon. Member for Meriden in looking for labels in shops, she will know that country-of-origin labelling is becoming increasingly common, especially on meat and meat products. I welcome that. The snag is that the labelling is not always accurate, which is why the arguments on misleading labelling are so important. We have to be careful not to impose on the agency duties that it is unable to perform—a point raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We have to recognise the limitations prevailing within the single market on unilateral changes to labelling, while taking every opportunity to give consumers the information that they need, including information on country of origin. The effect of the Opposition amendment would be wider than simply inserting in the Bill a requirement for country-of-origin rules. Under it, the agency would be given a remit encompassing general issues of sourcing—the hon. Member for Meriden appears to agree with that. However, some issues may be outwith the agency's responsibility. The agency cannot have overall responsibility for sourcing because that is often based on commercial decisions, such as availability and seasonality, and has nothing to do with food safety and quality. They are the issues for which the agency is responsible. Although I understand and sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, for the technical reason that I have given and in light of its wider definition of sourcing, it is not appropriate to include the amendment in the Bill in its present form. The amendment has been introduced at a very late stage. We conceded generously to the concerns about labelling that were expressed in the other place—a fact that I hope the hon. Lady will recognise and welcome.
Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)
The Minister is correct to point out that we are debating a Food Standards Bill and a Food Standards Agency, not a food sourcing agency. Can she assure the House that imported food in our shops will meet the same standards of animal welfare and food hygiene as home-grown and home-produced food? That is the best way both to give consumers information on which they can base an informed choice and to ensure that domestic farmers operate on a level playing field.
Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, to which he made a slightly different allusion earlier. We are governed by both national and European requirements in this area. There are European standards for food quality and safety, which we apply. In certain cases, we also apply higher national standards, which is permissible. However, we cannot block imports from other European Union countries when there are agreed European standards. That refers to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. There are recognised safety standards within the European Commission that countries outside the European Union are required to meet before they can import to the EU. The EU is becoming increasingly interested in food safety, and European Commission President Prodi has advanced ideas for a European food standards agency, authority or some kind of mechanism to ensure that European consumers' general concerns for both safety and quality within the internal market are satisfied properly in future. We want to contribute constructively to that debate. We believe that the Government's record on labelling is second to none, and vastly superior to the woeful record of the Conservatives during 18 years in office. We do not need to take advice from the Opposition, and I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that, both technically and in substance, the amendment is not appropriate to the Bill.
Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)
The Opposition regret that, like her predecessors, the Minister is unwilling to incorporate in the Food Standards Bill this important amendment about the labelling part of sourcing. For that reason, we shall press the matter to a vote.