§ '(1) This section applies if the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be exercisable in or as regards Wales.
§ (2) The National Assembly for Wales shall—
- (a) consider the matters referred to in this Act, and
- (b) within three months of a resolution of the sort referred to in subsection (1) above, make provision for the functions of the Agency provided for in this Act to be carried out in ways other than those provided for in this Act.'—[Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 24, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
'(7A) If the Agency fails to comply with directions under subsection (1) in a case where the power under subsection (1) has been exercised by the National Assembly for Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may—No. 13, in clause 33, page 17, line 43, at end insertand until new appointments are made, may itself make provision for the carrying out of the Agency's functions.'.
- (a) remove from office the member of the Agency appointed by it, and
- (b) remove from office any members of the advisory committee for Wales,
'; or—(C) the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be any longer exercisable in or as regards Wales.'.No. 14, in page 18, line 5, at end insert—'(aa) modifying this or any other Act as She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales of the sort referred to in subsection (1)(c) above;'.No. 35, in schedule 4, page 36, line 5, at end insert—'Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)—. In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 there shall be inserted—Food Standards Agency.Food Standards Agency advisory committee for Wales.".'
§ Mr. JonesIt is a pleasure to speak to the new clause and the amendments. The spirit of these matters was discussed in the National Assembly for Wales when the Health and Social Services Committee considered whether there should be a separate agency for Wales. Clause 33 in particular makes one realise that the House is already paving the way, under the devolved provisions, for the possibility of separate agencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas no such provision is being made for Wales. That is a mistake. If Wales wants to pursue separate policies on food standards and wants the same flexibility as Scotland and Northern Ireland, it should have that opportunity.
I have considered the advice given to the Committee of the National Assembly on why a separate agency might not be appropriate for Wales. I confess that I do not find it very convincing. For example, it says that a separate agency for Wales would require separate scientific advice. I do not see why that should be so. If scientific advice is available to the agency in England, it could be provided to an agency in Wales.
6.15 pm
For example, the Welsh Assembly received scientific advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee when we conducted our inquiry into beef on the bone. It was not necessary for the Welsh Assembly to have separate scientific advice. It was perfectly proper for it to accept SEAC's advice on that occasion, so I see no reason why the situation should be different with the Food Standards Agency. The Bill should allow the Welsh Assembly to have the same flexibility as Scotland and 1426 Northern Ireland in developing policies and, in the interests of consistency, we should have similar provisions.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be viewed in the context of our argument in support of new clause 3. I therefore move quickly to amendment No. 17. It would give the Assembly the power to remove the agency member for Wales who is appointed by the Assembly under clause 2, and any member of the advisory committee for Wales. That would be a useful addition to the powers conferred on the Welsh Assembly by this legislation. Although I hope that we will never have to call for the removal of appointees, it is important to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has that sanction.
In the interests of brevity, I shall move on to amendment No. 35. As the House will know, the schedule to the Government of Wales Act 1998 lists several bodies that the Assembly can call to give advice to it and evidence to its Sub-Committees. The Welsh Assembly has been working for only a matter of weeks, but I think that subject Committees are an excellent concept. The Committees are doing excellent work and providing good information to the people of Wales. I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment because I think that the Food Standards Agency should be called to give evidence to the appropriate Sub-Committee which will want to consider a range of issues in the interests of probity.
On that basis, I hope that the Government will feel minded to accept at least some of the amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones)Hon. Members will want to debate several important amendments and new clauses later this evening. Therefore, I intend to deal with these amendments quickly, unless I am pressed.
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) for the brevity with which he explained his amendments, and I shall deal rapidly with new clause 3 and speak to amendments Nos. 17, 13 and 14. The hon. Gentleman has done what I have come to expect from a member of Plaid Cymru when we consider Bills that involve Wales as well as England: he has tried to rewrite the Government of Wales Act 1998 by giving primary legislation powers to the Welsh Assembly.
§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn JonesQuite right.
Mr. Jon Owen JonesI understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Nevertheless, even if I were persuaded by his argument, I am sure that he will agree that this is not the right vehicle through which fundamentally to redraw the Government of Wales Act, which the people of Wales accepted in the 1997 referendum. I must therefore reject the amendments.
The intention behind amendment No. 35 is to give the National Assembly for Wales power to require attendance and production of documents by any person who is a member or a member of staff of the Food Standards Agency and its advisory committee for Wales. Having considered that amendment, I think it appropriate that the power of summons should apply to the agency and the advisory committee. Although the agency will be a Crown body, there are no close parallels operating in Wales. The agency will have the full range of policy 1427 responsibilities on food safety, which is a devolved area, and it is appropriate that the Assembly should be able to summon agency members, staff and the advisory committee when it deems necessary. We are, therefore, minded to accept that amendment.
The other amendments, however are not appropriate because they require primary legislation powers. The National Assembly for Wales will have important secondary legislation powers to determine regulations governing food safety in Wales. As the hon. Gentleman will know, those powers allow the Assembly to determine policy on matters such as beef on the bone, the licensing of butchers' shops, codes and practices governing how local authorities enforce food laws, infant food regulations, food additive regulations and food labelling regulations. It is not appropriate to extend those powers to primary legislation within the Bill.
§ Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset)I was a member of the Special Select Committee that considered the Bill, but I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I shall dispel a myth that has pervaded the debates on this Bill. Rather than analysing the Bill clause by clause, the Select Committee considered its general provisions. We did so in a short time, and with some confusion of evidence, because those who were presenting evidence were not sure whether they were doing so to us, as a Select Committee of the House, or to the Government.
The Select Committee considered the subject of this new clause and amendments, the consequences of devolution and the problems of a UK-wide agency that would be answerable to four different independent bodies: the Department of Health, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly.
There is today a supreme irony in the amendments moved on behalf of Plaid Cymru by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) because they undermine the spirit of the devolved Welsh Assembly, which does not, as the Minister stated, have primary legislative functions. They would also take Wales out of the Food Standards Bill altogether, or, as I suspect the hon. Member for Ynys Môn desires, create a separate Welsh food standards agency.
The irony of that is demonstrated on the front page of today's Western Mail, which carries the headline, "Fury as beef on the bone ban stays", following the announcement yesterday at a press conference in Cardiff of what had been the worst-kept secret in Welsh agriculture for the past week. Meeting in private last week, the Agriculture Committee of the National Assembly for Wales voted to forgo its existing powers in an important area of food standards—the beef-on-the-bone ban. Members of that Committee had earlier said that they would vote to lift the ban, but have now changed their minds.
Mr. Jon Owen JonesI am not a spokesperson for the National Assembly for Wales, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it did not vote to forgo its powers; it simply decided not to lift the beef on the bone ban now. The purpose of devolution was to allow the devolved powers to decide for themselves. The fact that Assembly Members—in their wisdom, I believe—decided that they would not, for the time being, take a decision that was 1428 different from this body's decision does not remove the fact that they were allowed to do so, and they decided not to.
§ Mr. WalterIn his interpretation—that Assembly Members were not forgoing their powers but deciding not to do something—the Minister is playing with semantics.
The key point that I wanted to make is that the three Opposition parties in Wales—the Conservatives, the Liberals and Plaid Cymru—had campaigned strongly for an early and unilateral lifting of the ban. That was a pre-election pledge of all three parties. Today's Western Mail article points out that
It emerged that those on the agriculture committee who changed their minds were largely Plaid Cymru members"—a stance which, to some extent, makes nonsense of the amendments in the name of the four Plaid Cymru Members of this House.If the ban had been lifted, it would have made nonsense of the Government's desire, to which I believe the Minister alluded just now, for a United Kingdom Food Standards Agency with UK-wide powers and UK-wide implementation—a concept which the Opposition support.
I should like to examine for a moment the nonsense of the amendments. I shall ignore amendment No. 35, which the Minister has said he is prepared to accept, but I shall focus on new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which would effectively give the Welsh Assembly the power to opt out, if it so desires, of the new food standards regime completely, or to set up its own regime, with a Welsh food standards agency.
The Minister mentioned the process that took place in the National Assembly for Wales. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly considered that matter on 23 June 1999.
§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn JonesI shall not pass comment on the hon. Gentleman's mischievous earlier remarks; I may refer to them in passing when I reply to the Minister's speech. However, will the hon. Gentleman read the Bill, and will he make specific comments about Wales? Clause 33(1)(a) says that the Scottish Parliament can pass
an Act providing for any functions of the Agency to be no longer exercisable in or as regards Scotland".What is the difference?
§ Mr. WalterThe difference is that the Scottish Parliament was set up with primary legislative powers but the Welsh Assembly was not. The Welsh Assembly was never envisaged as such and, in the referendum on setting up the Welsh Assembly, there was never any suggestion that the Assembly would have those powers. They are not in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The amendments would move us on a ratchet or two, by giving the Welsh Assembly those powers. That was never the intention of the House or of the people of Wales.
The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly was advised to support the proposal in the Bill
that the Food Standards Agency should be a UK-wide body, advising and reporting to the Assembly in relation to Wales, and carrying out the food safety and standards functions currently discharged by Assembly staff as well as the new UK functions proposed in the Bill.1429To ensure that the Welsh dimension is appropriately covered, the arrangements for the Food Standards Agency's operations in respect of Wales will include a Welsh Executive; an advisory committee for Wales; and sole appointment by the Assembly of a board member with special responsibility for Wales.There has been general support in Wales for the principle of a UK agency. That approach was recommended by the Government on the grounds of consistency and cost. As food safety and standards are tightly constrained by the European Union legislative framework, there seems to be little scope for variation in secondary legislation.6.30 pm
I shall refer to two items contained in the recommendations to the Health and Social Services Committee on 23 June, which are important to the new clause and the amendments. The committee was told that food safety
is an issue of great public concern.We would not object to that. The document continues:The need for consistency of policy and advice to the public is therefore a key consideration. Were there to be a separate Agency for Wales, it would need access to separate scientific advice from that which will be provided by existing committees to the Agency in England. There would therefore be a real danger of conflicting advice being made available, which would cause public confusion. In addition, since the scientific advisory committees which currently advise the Government are made up of the highest calibre independent scientists, it would be difficult to find sufficient independent scientists of high enough standing to advise a separate Welsh Agency.That was the first part of the recommendation to the National Assembly. The separate point is that the costof establishing a completely separate Agency in Wales would be far greater than the Welsh share of current costs. This additional cost would have to be met from within the Assembly's current budget at the expense of other priorities. Historically the Welsh Office has relied on expertise in the Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in many areas. For example, the Welsh Office has no trading standards advisers. It will be far more cost-effective for the Welsh Executive to use the central services provided by the Agency's headquarters, for example for financial services and I.T. support, than to seek to duplicate these functions in a separate Agency. The Bill provides for arrangements which will make the Agency properly accountable to the Assembly; will ensure that the Agency takes account of Welsh issues in advising the Assembly on legislation and in advising the public; and will allow the Assembly to monitor the Agency's performance and propose changes to its priorities and functions.That was the evidence that the Health and Social Services Committee considered. I have read through the committee's minutes and I will refer to a couple of items. It is stated in the minutes thatit is also important for Wales to maintain access to the best scientific advice…A separate Welsh Agency would lead to an unnecessary duplication of work.That is repeated by the members of the committee.The minutes continue:
The costs of setting up a separate Welsh Agency were estimated"—this was during the meeting on 23 June—to be approximately £6 million, whilst funding a Welsh Executive would require less than £1 million.Therefore, ensuring that Wales maintains a strong and distinctive voice within the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency is somewhat more important than 1430 having a separate Welsh food standards agency, which would be constrained both in its scientific advice and its financial resources. The minutes record thatthe Committee accepted the proposal for a UK Food Standards Agency.The Minister of State may recall our exchanges in the Select Committee on green top milk, which is banned in Scotland but freely available in England and Wales. We also discussed the beef-on-the-bone ban, even before the Bill was introduced. As has been said, the Welsh Assembly could have lifted that ban this week. Consumers in Chester, Hereford or Bristol could have made the short trip over the border and bought products banned in their local shops. Smuggling would have taken on new connotations in a UK context.It is possible, even without the amendments, that the FSA could recommend lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban. That advice could be accepted by the Welsh Assembly but rejected by the Department of Health. However, the consequences of the amendments go beyond those deficiencies of the Bill. The amendments drive a coach and horses through the concept of a UK-wide Food Standards Agency. Separate arrangements for Wales would lead to confusion among consumers. A separate Welsh food standards agency would do a great disservice to the Welsh consumer and to the Welsh taxpayer.
The cost, as we know, would be at least £6 million, just to create the separate administrative structure. I would be interested in any advice that the Minister could give about the cost of a separate meat hygiene service for Wales, if that were bolted on to a Welsh food standards agency.
A more important objection to the amendments must be on the grounds of safety and science. The original arguments for creating the agency were that it would be able to call on the best scientific advice available, and would have the resources to pay for it. Separate scientific advice available to a smaller, less-well-resourced Welsh food standards agency could only be inferior.
I heard the comment of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that a separate agency could receive the same advice but, if it came to different conclusions, the Welsh consumer might suffer. Welsh consumers deserve the same superior scientific advice as their English and Scots cousins enjoy.
The fundamental objection to the amendments is constitutional. They are a clear attempt by the Welsh nationalists to move the goalposts in respect of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. The amendments would enable the Welsh Assembly to pass primary legislation. That was never the Government's intention in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and nor was it the will of the Welsh people in the referendum. It would certainly have been opposed by Conservative Members. On those grounds alone, regardless of the scientific and the cost grounds, we have no reason to support the amendments.
§ Dr. BrandIt is interesting to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I now understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). We have just heard a trainee colonial governor's announcement of what should happen in one of our dependencies. [Interruption.] It is well known that I represent an offshore dependency.
We welcome the ministerial decision on amendment No. 35. There might have been less support in Wales for the amendments moved by the hon. Member for 1431 Ynys Môn if the Government had been less opaque about the functioning and reporting of concordats. I hope that we will have an assurance from the Government that the Welsh Assembly will be an active participant in the drawing up of concordats, and that Assembly Members will be able to discuss them openly and publicly.
§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn JonesThe speech of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made the case for devolution better than any argument that I have ever heard. It was paternalistic and arrogant, and the hon. Gentleman failed to understand the concept of devolution. It is little wonder that his party's vote collapsed in Wales during the recent elections to the National Assembly. On that performance, it will never rise again.
All that we seek to achieve through the amendments is to enable Wales to be treated in the same way as Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks much more carefully if he had read the National Assembly's report on beef on the bone. He quoted selectively from the Western Mail, but he failed to tell the House that, in that same report, is a quote from the Conservative Member of the Committee, saying in terms that he accepted that the issue of lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban was not as simple as he had originally thought.
The National Assembly has decided not to abrogate its responsibility but to listen to the medical advice. When that becomes available in August, we shall reconsider the matter. The hon. Gentleman quotes extensively from some Assembly documents to support his case, but simply ignores others.
Having put on the record the correct position with regard to the National Assembly, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that, on the basis that he accepts amendment No. 35 and that a quarter of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, I shall not press the three amendments that he was unable to accept, and that I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.