HC Deb 22 July 1999 vol 335 cc1431-48
Mr. Chris Mullin (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—

  1. (a) investigating and monitoring the effect on food safety of—
    1. (i) animal husbandry systems and practices with inadequate standards of animal health and welfare;
    2. (ii) the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals for growth promotion or prophylactic purposes; and
    3. (iii) slaughterhouse systems and practices with inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare; and
  2. (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.

Mr. Paice

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.

Dr. Brand

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.

Mr. Paice

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.

Mr. Maclean

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.

Mr. Paice

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.

Mr. Mullin

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.

Mr. Paice

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.

Mr. Gill

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?

Mr. Paice

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.

Mr. Luff

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.

Dr. Gibson

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.

Mr. Luff

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

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.

Mr. Andrew George

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.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to a specific amendment and then lament the fact that he cannot go on to further amendments.

Mr. George

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.

Mr. Hancock

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.

Mr. George

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.

Mr. Rooker

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.

Mr. Paice

There is still time.

Mr. Rooker

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.

Mr. Gill

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.

Dr. Gibson

The running dogs of the pig industry.

Mr. Rooker

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.

Mr. Mullin

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Spelman

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.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in clause 21, page 10, line 43, at end insert— '(4) The Agency shall make a report to Parliament on the exercise of its powers under this section in each calendar year.'.

Mrs. Spelman

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.

Mr. Gill

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.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be more specific and remain within the terms of his amendment. In some respects, he is making a Second Reading speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remind us of the content of his amendment.

Mr. Gill

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.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell)

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.

Mrs. Spelman

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—

Mr. Gill

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.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech during an intervention; that is just not on.

Mrs. Spelman

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.

Mr. Gill

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Mrs. Spelman

I have withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to