HC Deb 25 October 2001 vol 373 cc499-518 5.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Union document no. 14174/00, a draft Council regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food; and supports the Government's objective of the introduction of effective arrangements to re-establish and maintain consumer confidence in the regulation of food safety at European Union level. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important measure on the Floor of the House. The Government attach particular importance to the establishment of a European food authority as an aid to re-establishing consumer confidence in the food supply and to making the European Union regulatory process more transparent.

Proposals were published by the European Commission in November last year and agreement to a common position was reached in the Council in the summer. Several issues that are covered in the proposal have already been debated in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the House of Lords last year during deliberations on the Commission's White Paper on food safety. This proposal cleared scrutiny by the European Union Committee in the Lords in March. All views expressed have been taken into account in the negotiations that were given priority by the Swedish presidency in the first half of the year.

The European Parliament is considering the Council's common position text. It is likely that the co-decision process will be completed in time to allow formal adoption of the regulation by the end of the year. That would enable the European food authority to be established by early 2002, in line with European Council conclusions.

The proposal can be broken down into three distinct parts: general food law, establishing a European food authority and dealing with emergencies and procedural food safety issues in the Union. I shall speak briefly about each part.

The food law element will establish an overarching approach to considering food safety issues at European level by defining general principles, which legislators must take into account when developing European Union and national food law. It also includes requirements for those who produce our food. Some are new general requirements, such as traceability, although specific, detailed traceability requirements already exist in some sectors. Others enhance existing obligations, such as procedures on withdrawal and recall.

In the United Kingdom, we operate basic safeguards primarily under the Food Safety Act 1990. The Food Standards Agency administers the controls; consumer protection lies at its heart. We are trying to strengthen that concept in Europe and when setting international food standards more generally.

Although most food law is already subject to harmonised measures throughout the Union, the proposal now better reflects our basic safeguards. That will ensure that the principles of consumer protection and prohibition on placing unsafe food on the market will apply to food legislation throughout the Union.

We initially expressed preference for a directive, especially given our anxieties about the potential for delaying the establishment of the European food authority. The original proposal was unclear about scope and intent, but the text has been significantly improved in the past six months. In the light of rapid progress, we can support the legislative form of a regulation, which will be directly applicable. Given the similarities, some changes will be required to our primary legislation. However, our high standards on food and public health will not be compromised.

Although our Food Standards Agency has wide statutory powers, combining all the inherent elements of the risk analysis process—assessment, management and communication—the European food authority will differ because it will be limited to scientific assessment and its communication. The legislation and control elements—risk management—will remain with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. We do not want to change that, but as we stated in the Government response last year, it is essential to recognise the need for effective communication between all those involved in risk analysis. They include the food authority, the Commission and member states. We have achieved recognition of the need for such coherence in the common position text.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I am trying to work out how one can split risk assessment and communication from risk management. How will that affect, for example, genetically modified organisms? The criteria overlap on that.

Ms Blears

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We aim to try to ensure that the role of the European food authority is to draw together the best scientific advice, expertise and evidence. Views based on that evidence should be communicated to those who will have to make decisions about risk management. The processes are different. We want to ensure that those responsible for the decisions make them in the light of the best scientific evidence available in the European Union.

We believed that it was especially important that, when advising on risk assessment, the food authority should be able to identify options or make recommendations for action to risk managers. They should give a public explanation for any deviation from the authority's recommendations. That would mean not that the food authority would become involved in determining risk management solutions, but that the assessors, with the scientific data at their fingertips, should be able to identify practical solutions. That was our view, but others were not able to support it. That is a missed opportunity, but we note that the proposal still provides for the authority to express and publish its conclusions on matters within its remit.

I stress that the proposed authority will not be directly responsible for any enforcement or control aspects of legislation. That remains the responsibility of member states under the food and feed control directives, although there are proposals in the pipeline, as the Commission's legislative plan in the White Paper on food safety suggests, to introduce a fully harmonised approach on the matter.

The authority's remit is also seemingly broad, encompassing animal health and welfare and plant health. Some of those issues could have an impact on food safety, but it is extremely important to ensure that secondary issues do not divert the authority from its principal role of safeguarding food and feed safety. The National Farmers Union told us forcefully that the authority should concentrate on its core remit.

We have considered carefully the arguments and counter-arguments in regard to whether the authority should be a one-stop shop for all scientific advice, including advice on issues that have a less direct impact on food safety. That has obvious implications for resources, and for the authority's ability to deal with issues directly affecting food safety and the safety of consumers. We are satisfied that the proposed regulation now strikes the right balance in terms of the focus of the authority.

It is vital that this opportunity to establish a truly innovative approach to the way in which food safety issues are tackled at European level should not be squandered by the establishment of a food authority that is so overburdened that it may not act in a proactive manner, or whose structure dictates that it will not be able to make its voice heard in a truly independent way. We pushed hard for maximum openness and transparency, as well as independence from political influence, for the management board.

The Commission has stated its preference for its original proposal, which involves four members from the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, but we now see reference to members' being appointed in such a way as to secure the highest possible levels of competence and a broad range of relevant expertise.

Our European partners have been impressed by the UK's policy of debating important food safety issues in public. We achieved provision in the proposed regulation for the possibility of public meetings of the scientific panels, and the possibility of observers on the panels themselves. Similar points have been made to us effectively by the Consumers Association, which is keen to ensure that the public are involved. We now have more potential for consumer involvement: the original proposal contained no more than a passing reference to contacts with consumers as contained in the original proposal.

The latest text now better defines the forum's role, ensuring that the authority can tap into the wealth of knowledge residing in member states. That will help to avoid duplication of effort within the EU, and will serve as a mechanism for exchange of information on potential risks and pooling of knowledge.

The final part of the proposal relates to procedural matters, such as the establishment of a crisis unit, and a mediation procedure, with Commission involvement, in the event of differences of opinion between member states. Those initiatives are particularly welcome in the area of crisis management. Consideration will need to he given to a fast-track procedure, with the authority's active involvement, enabling important decisions to be taken as quickly as possible on the basis of the latest science.

As I have said, the European Parliament is currently considering the Council's common position text with a view to amendments. The process is still in its early stages. The main issues seem to relate to a greater role in the appointments of the executive director and management board, and a provision that would prevent food business operators from preventing or discouraging anyone from co-operating with the competent authorities when there was a risk to food—a whistleblowing provision. On the latter, we are sympathetic to the principle but are considering the scope and effect. This issue is essentially covered in domestic legislation for employees under the Public Information Disclosure Act 1998.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

Will the Minister say something about the massive power that we are giving the authority to charge fees? What kind of fees will they be, who will determine the size of the fees under article 45, who will determine to whom the fees apply, and to whom can the Government complain if they think that the fees are unfair? Would it not be helpful for us to be given some advice on this new power to levy fees throughout Europe?

Ms Blears

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I understand that member states already have power to charge fees for the analysis of documents and the submission of dossiers. This is not a new power as such, and we shall therefore need a system ensuring that equity and transparency are involved in the charges and the arrangements generally. Such a system will be developed during the process of establishing the authority.

6.5 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)

I welcome the debate. As the Minister knows, the Scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament recommended that this was an issue of such importance that a debate on the Floor of the House should be devoted to it. I am pleased that that recommendation has been agreed to, and that we are having this debate today.

In recent years there have been serious problems in the food chain due to BSE, foot and mouth disease, E. coli and dioxin poisoning; there is also a public debate raging about genetically modified foods. The need for a focused and concerted approach to food safety is clear to anyone. It is also abundantly clear that, just as environmental problems do not respect national boundaries, so it is with food safety issues. It is important to have cross-country, cross-border co-operation to ensure the integrity of the food chain and the maintenance of the highest levels of consumer confidence in the food that is consumed.

I fully accept that there is an important role for Britain to play by co-operating in restoring and maintaining high levels of consumer confidence in food safety, but we must not forget that there is a balance to be struck in achieving this. We must resist the temptation that is often prevalent among Governments of all political parties to impose too many layers of bureaucracy in seeking to deal with a problem. That can lead to institutions being given, in effect, a blank cheque, allowing them to be meddlesome, unnecessarily interfering, officious and harsh in the way in which they go about their duties.

The motion on the proposed European food authority is a straightforward one, and I welcome the fact that the Minister's speech fleshed out some of the details of the authority, including how it will operate in practice and the principles behind its establishment. However, a number of issues in the proposals need further clarification in the light of the Government's responses to the House of Lords' report on the subject and the Department of Health's explanatory memorandums signed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the Minister.

Some areas of concern need to be examined further. If the Minister is unable to respond to some of my questions due to lack of time tonight, I should appreciate it if she would write to me to deal with the points that I have raised. It is important to clear these matters up. I have read the mass of papers made available to us by the Vote Office, and some of the detail has been changed through amendments in the European Parliament and through the Commission, so we need to know exactly what is being proposed at the moment.

The key objectives of the European food authority will be to provide independent scientific advice on food safety and nutrition issues, to identify emerging risks, to operate an extended rapid alert system and to inform the public on all matters within its remit. The key to the success of an effective food authority will be the quality of the scientific advice that it receives. The White Paper published by the Commission states that the organisation is to be the scientific point of reference for the whole Union. Rightly, to find the best scientific evidence available, it will be able to seek evidence beyond the European Union if that is appropriate and necessary. Given our experiences, I suspect that on occasion it will be appropriate and necessary for it to go further afield for the best scientific advice—to places such as Australia, the United States, Japan and other nations.

However, I have a question for the Minister. At the time of the BSE crisis in the mid-1990s, there was considerable conflicting information and seemingly differing scientific evidence. Does the Minister believe that the situation would have been exactly the same if the European food authority had been in place at that time? Because of the unknown nature of BSE when it started to unfold in all its horrors, would we have been in exactly the same position, because there was not enough scientific advice anywhere for us to be able to come up with a straightforward understanding of what exactly was going on in the early stages of that crisis?

Similarly, as the organisation will be the scientific point of reference for the European Union, it logically follows that it will produce advice that will almost certainly need to be acted upon. There needs to be greater clarification of whether the organisation will primarily be a proactive or a reactive body. It is a potential conflict that will have to be resolved at the outset if one wishes to avoid tensions and pressures that will undermine its efficiency and effectiveness.

The organisation's remit has been described as strikingly broad, including food safety, nutrition, plant health, animal health and animal welfare. The Minister referred to that strikingly broad remit, but with any body that has a broad remit, there is a danger that it will lose sight of its main objective. In this case, its main objective is to provide and to help advance food safety.

The National Farmers Union has written to hon. Members in anticipation of the debate. To be fair, the NFU broadly supports the establishment of the EFA, but it has expressed a concern that I think is genuine: the EFA must be focused, have a specific remit and not be diverted by issues that are only vaguely linked to food safety. It has given an example to back that concern: environmental or consumer issues that are not strictly speaking related to food safety. Does the Minister have any view on how the problem can be avoided where an overzealous EFA, for whatever reason, is sidetracked on to issues that are only loosely connected to food issues, is waylaid and goes beyond its true remit of food safety? The danger cannot be dismissed lightly. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter and has an answer on how to try to stop that problem emerging.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Knowing his strength and determination, I am delighted to see my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, but surely we cannot ask the Minister to make sure that that does not happen. She will have no power to do that, bearing in mind that all the people on the authority must be independent and totally outside the control and direction of any national Government. Surely he should not ask the Minister to do something that she cannot do.

Mr. Burns

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. particularly for his kind and typically generous comments. I also fully understand his genuine concern about the Minister's lack of powers. Perhaps I did not make my plea as clear as it should have been but, given that all the necessary proposals to establish the EFA have not yet been concluded, and given that the Minister, through the Government, still has an opportunity to persuade her ministerial colleagues in the European Parliament and the European Commission to fine-tune any parts of the proposals as necessary, if she agrees with the point that I have just outlined I hope she will use her influence to that effect.

Another area of concern is the harmonisation between member states. The NFU has raised the problem of the variation in quality and safety that third countries can exploit when sending produce into a member state. The produce is often prepared and wrapped as if it were the produce of that member state. Is the Minister in a position to give any clarification or reassurance that the EFA will implement the European rules and directives to ensure a common standard that will harmonise food safety across the EU and put an end to such imbalances. The problem has persisted for far too long and it needs addressing. Another related issue that will be crucial to the success of this authority is surveillance and enforcement.

I understand that surveillance will be conducted through a dual process—by member states and in addition by the EFA. There have been examples of poor quality or utter failures in surveillance by certain member states. The most glaring recent example involved Germany's failure in regard to the import of beef with spinal cords. How will the EFA stop or improve those unacceptable situations?

Perhaps surprisingly, enforcement is not part of the remit of the EFA, but rests with the European Commission. I wonder whether that is the most satisfactory or competent arrangement. The other place has recommended that Food and Veterinary Office functions should be brought together with those of the EFA. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Government now think that that might improve enforcement once the authority is up and running.

As the Minister will know, the Lords Select Committee has also recommended that the EFA should have explicit powers to offer opinions on the effectiveness of member states' monitoring and enforcement systems. That suggestion has many merits and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will look at it again with a view to seeking to influence the EU, the EC and the European Parliament to move on this issue. I have found in many walks of life that one way to concentrate the mind when effective action is needed is for a body to look into what is going on, reach a decision on what the standards should be and, in effect, name and shame organisations or individuals that are failing.

Unfortunately, there have been far too many examples in recent years of some member states interpreting the rules of the club to their own advantage, rather than correctly. The glaring example is that of the French cocking a snook at the rules over British beef and, so far, getting away with it. It is not satisfactory for the Commission to be the enforcing officer. We need a far more vigorous system in place to ensure that all member states enforce the rules equally so that no one is disadvantaged.

I wonder whether the proposal to split risk management and risk assessment between the EFA and the Commission, unlike in our system, in which both responsibilities reside with the Food Standards Agency, is sensible. When the Government introduced the Food Standards Agency, they clearly believed that the most effective system was to have both functions within the remit of one agency. I assume that they spotted the fundamental difference in the European proposals. I do not know whether they made representations and were unsuccessful, or whether they took their eye off the ball. If it was the former, I am sorry that their influence did not carry the day, because I believe that they were right in what they did here.

Does the Minister feel that splitting the functions could lead to conflict between the authority and the Commission? Not having them under the same umbrella could lead to tensions that could mean that the system does not work as effectively or efficiently as intended.

I want to ask about an issue of great importance to hundreds of thousands of individuals and organisations that is raised in the Minister's explanatory memorandum of 11 October. When her predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, published her memorandum before the general election, it said—I make no criticism, as it was a reasonable statement at that time—that it was too soon to come up with any realistic figures or suggestions on the extent of the impact of the proposals on British agriculture, commerce and industry.

Since then, the Minister has published another memorandum, in which, because events have moved on, she has been in a better position to give an idea of compliance costs. Annexe A of the Department of Health's partial regulatory impact assessment gives an estimate of the number of businesses that the Government anticipate will be affected by the proposals. The figures are quite significant: it is estimated that 63,000 farmers, 405 farm animal feed producers and approximately 612,000 food business establishments will be affected. However, even as recently as 11 October, the Department of Health was still unable to produce a guesstimate for the compliance costs. The legislation will have a significant impact on the whole agriculture sector and the food industry, and it would be helpful if the Government would publish their guesstimates—or their estimates, if they are more confident of those—of the compliance costs as soon as they are able to do so.

The explanatory memorandum also deals with whistleblowing. The European Parliament's environment committee is trying to come up with some sensible and workable proposals on this issue and it would seem that the Government are sympathetic to the principle that food business operators should not prevent or discourage anyone from co-operating with competent authorities if there is a possible risk to food. I assume that the Government are working with the European Parliament on workable proposals to protect whistleblowers who have information that should be passed to authorities to prevent threats to the food chain and food safety.

As the Minister knows, the House has a considerable interest in the development and improvement of food labelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject last year and, in a few weeks' time, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will introduce his private Member's Bill on food labelling. In the debate on 3 March 2000 on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—the then Minister—was not minded to support the legislation because it fell for determination within the European remit, rather than that of our national Government and this House. I am not convinced that that is accurate, but if the EFA is to have a responsibility in all areas of food safety, food labelling is an important issue. Consumers have the right to know certain things about the food that they purchase or consume. Any extension of food labelling should consider the issue of the nutritional value of food. Can the Minister tell us whether in this Parliament we can extend the food labelling proposals? If not, will the new authority be able to do something to afford greater protection and more information to consumers, which they should have as a right?

I have raised a number of issues on which the House needs more information concerning this far-reaching change in the existing regime for ourselves and our European partners in terms of the way in which we seek to protect and defend the integrity of the food chain. The debate is time limited and I fully understand that the Minister—who is helpful—will not have time to answer all the points that I raised. If she would write to me on those matters with which she cannot deal in the debate, I would be very grateful.

6.30 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I do not intend to detain the House, but I wish to speak on this important issue. For those of us interested in the evolution of food policy, this is another step along the road. I will not counter what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said on food labelling or on the Bill on that subject, which I shall be supporting a week on Friday and which I want to become law.

I wish to make three points: first, the role of the Food Standards Agency in relation to the European food authority; secondly, what the proposal may do in terms of food imports; and, thirdly, food labelling. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made a valid point when he asked whether the agency would be proactive or reactive. One of the best aspects of the agency—an organisation in its infancy—is that it has sought to investigate, research and communicate with the general public.

I had the fortune to accompany my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) a couple of weeks ago when the agency held an open meeting. It was good to see that the agency was trying to engage with the general public on issues that matter to them. Food issues do matter. Anyone who wants a good discussion—not disregarding the subject of international terrorism—should mention food and people will put in their threepenny-worth.

It is not usually my inclination to be pro-European, but I can see the value in setting up such a European authority. However, I would not want the nature of the Food Standards Agency to be lost by being merged into something flaccid and regulatory, rather than innovatory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a clear indication that we will encourage the agency to pursue its exciting role in education, health and communication.

I would like to know how the European food authority will engage with issues such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, which clearly have a pan-European importance. It is not just Britain that is struggling with scrapie and BSE in sheep; the TSE issue is something that Europe as a whole must face. There is the possibility of conflict between scientists of different nations—something we have grown used to. Scientists will give their honest and best advice on whatever issue they are asked to comment. For example, the findings of French scientists on British beef were different from the findings of scientists in the rest of Europe. They may have been looking at slightly different questions, but I want to know how the problem will pan out. We have to be aware that it could cause difficulties for the EFA. Any comments from my hon. Friend the Minister will be closely scrutinised.

I have been pursuing in Europe the question of embedded items in food. Such items have been banned in the United States, but in this country we still allow them in chocolate eggs and other foods. I was lucky enough to hold an Adjournment debate on the matter some time ago. How will the EFA deal with that issue?

I come now to the other two matters that I wish to raise. It is clear that food imports are one of the issues of the moment, and the number of written questions on the subject show that we are examining import controls in this country. Imports from third countries have been mentioned, so how will the UK tighten up on imports, given that we will be taking more of a pan-European approach? The National Farmers Union inquiry into import controls raises questions about the co-ordination and effectiveness of what is going on. I hope that the EFA will have a role in getting rid of some of the substandard products that arrive in this country and end up on our shelves.

Finally, it has been established that consumers want food labelling. The forthcoming Bill on food labelling has yet to be published so I cannot comment on it, but although its predecessor had some merit it also had some problems. Not least of those was the fact that the European Court was likely to rule against it on the advice of Ministers. We need some clarification on whether matters have moved on since then, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford hoped.

It would be good to know that we are able to deal with the principle and the practicalities of food labelling. People need to know that they are buying what is listed on the label. If they want more detail, they should be able to get it from a database. That is now possible, and it is just a matter of getting the delivery right. This country wants to tighten up in this area, and it will be interesting to see what the EFA may have to say on the matter.

I largely welcome the draft regulation, although I agree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that we need further clarification of some matters. We should do all we can to make our food safer and better, and information about it more accessible. The draft regulation seems to be moving in that direction, and so can only be a good thing—even though some hon. Members want a national entity working in the areas to which I have alluded.

6.38 pm
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall)

I agree with earlier speakers that this debate is important and timely. The development of food policy and consumers' interest in the food that they eat, its safety and how it is produced. will command attention both in the House and outside it. Perhaps more people outside the House will be interested in the subject than hon. Members, judging by attendance for this debate.

Food safety issues are increasingly important, and the international aspect of the food production and processing chain is growing. We have to ensure that there is genuinely free movement of goods in the single internal market, but we must also recognise that there are clear problems and risks associated with food imports. However difficult it may be, we must try to establish some basic principles with regard to what food safety, nationally and internationally, really means.

First, the regulation needs to cover the whole of the food chain, across all the food sectors and between all the member states. If it is to work properly, it will have to be drawn up very carefully. Secondly, we must establish where responsibility truly rests within the chain and which authorities are competent to monitor and enforce matters. Having read through all the papers, I do not think that that has been made abundantly clear. Thirdly, we need to set up real traceability of feed and food. The process must be transparent and the risk analysis must have credibility based on clear science. Again, there seems to be a problem regarding where the scientific advice is established and deciding how it is to be used between the European food authority and the Food Standards Agency.

We greatly supported the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, which has made an important contribution to the process. However, it is still in its infancy and has as yet to command the unquestioning public confidence that it will need if its pronouncements are to have authority. Regrettably, some of the recent comments about BSE in sheep have not added to the FS A's credibility.

We need to extend this area into a European dimension to protect public health and restore consumer confidence now that food processing and trade has become more international. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, labelling will be crucial to the exercise. It was pointed out last year that our ability to introduce labelling will be subject to European involvement. Will the EFA's remit cover proactive involvement in labelling?

As the Minister mentioned, the EFA's establishment also provides the opportunity to divide the responsibilities of risk assessment from risk management. However, it is not clear to me nor, I believe, to some other speakers whether that distinction is vital to the ability to control food safety or whether it will be divisive and a means by which national food standards agencies can conflict with the European food authority. They need to he complementary, not contradictory.

There is a need to take measures to safeguard food imports from third countries, and it was brought home to me when I visited Felixstowe a few months ago. People there were obliged to accept descriptions and paperwork from European imports of food that had been imported from third countries. There is no doubt that we are all exposed to the weakest European Union border and its control and enforcement of what can ultimately arrive on our shores and on to our plates.

For the EFA to be successful, it must display true independence and be free of any commercial or political pressures. That will be one of its most important and, perhaps, difficult tasks. There could always be a suspicion that political influences and expediencies as well as commercial pressures—perhaps even via bodies such as the World Trade Organisation—may have an undue influence on its pronouncements. It must be open and transparent in its dealings with the public. For it to have respect and credibility, its science and evidence must he rooted in cross-border national scientific bodies.

It is essential that the European Commission and the European food authority evidence is always made available to the European Parliament. It is no good if pronouncements are taken to the Commission and decisions are made on evidence that is not freely and transparently available. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when we make our views known to the European Union, we will say that that transparency should be an important part of the way in which a European food authority will operate.

I agree that it is rather dangerous to extend the remit too far by including food risks, nutritional issues, animal health and welfare, environmental protection and suchlike, and so lose the focus. None the less, it has become clear that we want many of those issues to be included in the round of World Trade Organisation talks. It would be interesting to know whether the EFA will participate on behalf of the European Union, or whether its advice will be part of any EU involvement in the talks. If so, the EFA must have some involvement in and knowledge of animal welfare and environmental issues.

There has been comment about the costs of the exercise. We do not know precisely how much the EFA will cost, let alone what it will cost individual farms, food processors, businesses and shops. It would behove the European Union to give clear guidance on what the costs are likely to be. The public will not be too impressed if we merely accept something with a huge potential cost that could fall on our farmers, our agriculture industries, our retailers and our food processors.

For far too long, the general public have not been fully engaged in understanding or even accepting much of Europe, but if the consumer is to be king and is to be properly involved, and if there is to be proper consultation and public discussion, rather than pronouncements being received from on high, here is a real opportunity for the public to be involved in an area of policy in which they are directly interested. It behoves all hon. Members to ensure that there is proper public debate and that our constituents are involved in food policy, especially the way in which it affects our relationship with Europe.

A few concerns remain. Some of them have been aired already, but I would like to repeat them. How will the proposed EFA and the national food safety bodies—in our case, the Food Standards Agency—relate to each other? How will we ensure that they do not duplicate each other's work? If disputes arise, as they are almost bound to, how will mediation work? Who will come out on top in the end? That must be clear. Will the national body be sovereign in its own state, or will the EFA have the last word?

How will the division of responsibility for risk assessment and management work in practice, especially if there are differing scientific views? How will we be protected from the danger that regulatory decisions may be influenced and taken on overtly political grounds rather than on grounds of real agreed science? How will we ensure that in all member states the EFA has the credibility to be able to make clear decisions without undue influence being exercised? Finally, as I have said, we need to know precisely how the authority will be funded.

Those are legitimate concerns, but there is an overriding need to move on. The last time this subject was debated, my hon. Friends voted against the motion, but matters have now moved on and become more urgent. Unless we address the concerns that remain, many of which have been raised this evening, we will not get it right. At the time, we believed that it would have been appropriate for the EFA to grow out of the national food standards bodies in each member state, so that they would have a stake in how it was being formed and how it would operate and be regulated. We are now proposing to put it on top, before some member states have even established their own food standards agencies. We should realise that there could be difficulties that will need to be overcome. Despite that, we give the measure broad support in the hope that the EFA will be successful and that public food policy, and food safety in particular, will be enhanced by it.

6.50 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

I have a few questions and I hope that I shall get some answers.

I was glad to hear the thoughtful and challenging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). He talked about the transfer of power to this European organisation. Bearing it in mind that this is an important issue that will cost much public money and involve a substantial transfer of power, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether it will make the slightest difference whether we vote for or against the motion. I hesitate to mention voting because my party has recently made it clear that we do not want to vote on anything, but I should like to establish the point.

My first point is that there is much undue optimism and hopefulness about the establishment of this massive new body. Instead of discussing how to set up this huge new organisation, which will overshadow organisations that are already working well, would it not be infinitely better for Britain, and for Europe, to set up an organisation to consider the basic problem of over-production of food?

I ask that question because the Minister may have noticed that on Friday I received a written answer that described the success of the European Union in destroying food. I found to my astonishment that last year 269,000 tonnes of apples were destroyed at public expense, as were 255,000 tonnes of peaches, 229,000 tonnes of oranges and much more besides. Well over 1 million tonnes of food were destroyed at public expense when we have already paid farmers a great deal of public money to produce it. Is there not a danger of over-optimism? What will this new organisation be able to do that is not already being done by our national organisations?

Secondly, how much power will be transferred? The report of the European Scrutiny Committee notes: whilst the present system had … functioned well, there needed to be a comprehensive and integrated approach to food safety"— and that, although responsibility was not exclusive to the Community— all aspects needed to be addressed at Community level". It strikes me that there will be a substantial transfer of power to the EU and that, once it goes, our Parliament, our Government and the European Parliament will have no control over what happens: total independence will be given to the organisation.

The organisation's remit will cover matters such as animal health. What powers will it have on that? For example, if it thought that the conditions in which calves were kept in, for example, like Holland were deplorable, shocking and disgraceful, what could it do about it? People who are concerned about animal welfare will be especially interested to learn from the Minister about the powers that the organisation will have to deal with nasty or cruel conditions.

Thirdly, I want to ask about the power to charge fees, which is another substantial power being given to the organisation. In three years, it will be able to charge fees for any of its services. If British food producers, farmers or shopkeepers thought that the costs and fees were unfair or unreasonable, what exactly could they do about it? My understanding is that once the organisation has decided on its fees, there is nothing that we can do about them.

Fourthly, will the Government have any power or control over the organisation? The proposed article 37 includes the words: The members of the Management Board, the members of the Advisory Forum and the Executive Director shall undertake to act independently in the public interest". That means that they should not be subject to any political controls. Is it a fact that that organisation, once established, is fully independent and cannot be controlled in any way?

Fifthly, where will the organisation be located? It is most unusual to have before us a motion that does not allow us to decide anything that sets up an expensive new organisation in an unknown location. Of all the European organisations, such as banks, that have been established, hardly any have come to the United Kingdom. Has it been decided where this organisation will be located, and if not, who will decide?

Sixthly, I want to ask about the costs. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said that there was no indication of costs, but there are a good many references to them in the papers that we have been given. Paragraph 27 of the explanatory memorandum, headed "Financial implications", says that the start-up costs were to be £5.4 million, the annual costs initially £14.9 million and the running costs thereafter £26.6 million. Is that a realistic projection? Will we in fact spend £26.6 million after spending the £5.4 million, and will the costs be kept under control? My feeling is that, like all the Euro-ventures, it will probably end up costing a great deal more.

Seventhly, I want to ask the Minister about media. because the legislation and papers refer to the organisation's setting up a substantial media organisation. If the British Parliament, the British Government, the European Parliament or any other democratic body thought that the organisation was using its media consultants and staff—which are provided for in the legislation referred to in paragraphs 23 and 23.1 of the Government response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, headed "Risk communication and relations with the media"—to put out information that they regarded as unsatisfactory, untruthful or misleading, what power would our Government have over the organisation? My understanding is that they would have none.

Eighthly, what controls will the organisation have over imports? All the written answers on imports make it abundantly clear that as a result of our chronic problem of over-production of everything in Europe, which is getting a great deal worse, there is massive pressure to try to restrict and control imports. I do not feel a special obligation in that respect because I consider that we have a responsibility to other countries that produce excellent food to high standards that the consumers of Britain like to consume.

I always buy New Zealand butter because I know that it is produced in a country where standards are high, and the knowledge that it is produced without subsidies adds to my enjoyment when I eat it. I would be very upset if I felt that our European so-called friends were going to have the power to restrict or control imports from such countries. I simply ask the Minister, if, for example, the new organisation said, "Because of a specific plant or flower, we take the view that New Zealand butter is unacceptable" because we have too much butter of our own, what could New Zealand, the British Government or consumers who wanted to consume it do?

I am afraid that I have been a bore about this over the years, but in Europe we have set up a number of organisations over which we and our democratic bodies have no control, but in respect of which we have expressed undue hope and optimism. I found that that was the case when I had the pleasure of being a member of the Treasury Committee—although I misbehaved—for a brief period and visited Germany and France.

I met the business communities there to discuss the single currency. They all thought that everything was going to be wonderful. The Germans were delightful people. They said, "We've got a rubbish Government and, unfortunately, rubbish Opposition but once we get the single currency everything will be sorted out."

The French were even nicer, although they seemed to drink a little more. They said that they had a mad Government who were, unfortunately, introducing a 35-hour week, but that all that would stop once they had the single currency. In the continent of Europe, they seem to think that anything new and any new power, such as the food authority, will bring benefits that they simply do not bring.

Another strange aspect of the matter is that on page 18, the document uses the words to be open to … public scrutiny". That influenced me a great deal. Will the Minister say how the body will be open to public scrutiny? If my constituents, the Confederation of British Industry or some organisation in my constituency wanted to find out more about it, how would they do so? She will be well aware that organisations set up under the European Union are not open to public scrutiny.

For example, on financial controls, the Minister will be aware of the horrific news the other day that for six years the Court of Auditors has not approved the EU accounts. The way in which the money is being spent should be a matter of concern.

I do not wish to speak for too long as other hon. Members want to contribute, although the motion does not matter and it will not make the slightest difference what we say about this or any other matter relating to the European Union. What benefit will result from this measure? Are we not simply transferring powers that were effectively controlled and managed and that could be altered and adjusted as we thought appropriate?

I was interested to hear all the talk about labelling. Hon. Members must know that although we propose private Members' Bills, the system is a load of codswallop. We do not have the power or control. Although we can let people put "Made in England" on goods, we cannot demand, under European laws, that it be stated that something is made in Germany, France or Portugal.

There is a danger that we think that we have powers that we do not have. Tonight we are simply transferring more power for something that will be of no good purpose. We are setting up an organisation that we cannot control. It will be wholly independent and outside democratic control and it will cost us a great deal of money. We are transmitting far more powers than we contemplate. The measure is a great mistake. I think that we could press the matter to a vote, but bearing in mind the views of the Conservative party—we do not want to vote on anything—I will not do so. We certainly should make it clear that we regret the measure and are concerned about it.

7.3 pm

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

I could probably disagree with one or two statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I understand that we are discussing a take-note motion, but it gives us an opportunity to debate an extremely serious issue.

I also disagree with my hon. Friend about New Zealand farming. It is true that subsidies were stopped for farming there, but other subsidies still exist and there are also questions of marketing and processing to consider. When the agriculture recession hit New Zealand, the majority of farmers were on some form of benefit payment. To say that when he spreads his butter on his wholemeal bread for breakfast, he is eating unsubsidised butter may not be true. It is good butter, however. Furthermore, in New Zealand grass grows for 11 months of the year, which gives their farmers a slight advantage over hill farmers in the north of England. That is why vulnerable farms here need some form of assistance.

As always with such European issues, we are ill at ease because we do not know where we shall be at the end of the process. We do not even really know the route that has been proposed. Those of us who have lived through such things in the past know only too well that what starts as an apparently beneficial and useful idea ends up being costly and complicated for those who become involved. For example, the EU directive on abattoirs was printed on two sides of A4 paper, but by the time that it had been fully implemented, the United Kingdom's slaughtering industry had been virtually wiped out because of it. I always embark on such things with a certain trepidation.

Having said that, I do not disagree with the proposals on the European food authority. However, I should be grateful to the Minister if she would tell us her views on the House of Lords recommendations. Unlike my hon. Friend, I think that the value of the EFA would be its independence. The House of Lords recommended: the EFA should have explicit powers to offer opinions on the effectiveness of Member States' monitoring and surveillance systems, and in turn on the adequacy and consistency of food safety enforcement activity across the European Union. The EFA would represent an important development if it were to have that power because, as has been said, it is feared that substandard food gets into the EU through its weakest border. We know that some EU countries pay little attention to what food comes into their countries because they know that it is simply in transit from their port of entry to other parts of Europe. If the EFA could flag up that issue, it would do the EU and its nations a service.

I appreciate that the Minister will want some time to answer the questions that have been asked, so I shall briefly explore the detail of two other matters that were mentioned by the National Farmers Union in its briefing and by hon. Members, the first of which is how much the EFA can stray into dangerous areas. The NFU suggests that as pesticides or additives … may involve risks to the environment or to the safety of workers, some environmental and worker protection aspects should also be assessed by the Authority in accordance with the relevant legislation. We need to clarify exactly what powers the EFA will have to deal with such issues.

The same applies to genetically modified organisms, because the NFU suggests that the EFA will have a view on GMOs, and the EFA's expert views may well contrast with those of individual nation states. Certain people in the United Kingdom are highly nervous about genetic modification, whereas I am pleased to say that people in other parts of Europe take a more robust view and think that genetic modification is a good thing. I agree with that view; I am one of the few people who think that it is a thoroughly good science that should be encouraged.

Secondly, I want to say something about plant and animal health and welfare. That does not form part of the EFA proposals, but it is dealt with in the general food law section of the EU document. Again, interesting anomalies could arise between different countries. The Minister may or may not be aware that, for example, the use of stalls and tethers in pig rearing was abolished unilaterally in the United Kingdom. That obviously caused considerable additional costs for our pork producers, but stalls and tethers were not outlawed in Denmark. If the objective was to rule that the use of stalls and tethers was satisfactory because they were not prohibited in other European countries, what recourse would United Kingdom farmers, who could no longer use them, have to compensation for being put at a disadvantage?

When organisations such as the EFA start to deal with health and food safety issues, there is scope for costs to increase greatly and for the market to be distorted in consequence.

Mr. Drew

It is a question of persuading the Danes to bring their animal welfare standards up to those of this country. That is the way to approach the matter.

Mr. Atkinson

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Danes may argue that there is no welfare problem with the practice. If that were endorsed Europe wide, our pig farmers would have the right to challenge it.

I would be interested to hear more detail about the issues that I have mentioned if the Minister can provide it in the time available. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that much more has been raised than she can deal with in her reply. We have had an interesting debate. I hope that we have shone a little light—clearly not enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East—on what could be a complex and important issue.

7.10 pm
Ms Blears

With the leave of the House, I shall reply.

There have been several extremely well informed and expert contributions to the debate. I for one have certainly learned some interesting new information. I shall do my best to respond to the questions that have been raised, but if I am unable to cover one or two of them, I shall certainly reply to hon. Members in writing.

The hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Bums) and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wondered whether the European food authority would be a new layer of European bureaucracy. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford was concerned that it would become unduly meddlesome, unnecessarily interfering and an extra burden on us. I reassure him that there is absolutely no intention that the EFA will become a bureaucratic body. In fact, it will rationalise much of the scientific information available in Europe. I understand that, at the moment, there are eight separate scientific committees advising the European Union on a range of issues. The proposal is for six different scientific committees and one overarching committee, so that there is unity and coherence in the system. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burns

To reassure the Minister, I was saying that a balance must be struck. All too often, organisations set up by Governments become bureaucratic, but I was not saying that the EFA necessarily would. We must ensure that it does not.

Ms Blears

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for what I take to be support for the organisation. The issue is important. In this case, the proposal is about bringing together mechanisms to try to ensure that we do not duplicate our activity but draw added value from pooling our scientific knowledge.

Other hon. Members raised the issue of the coherence of the system and member states' input into the EFA. I reassure them that the advisory forum will comprise representatives of all member states—from the Food Standards Agency in our case and from similar institutions in other member states. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to pool expertise and knowledge while at the same time maintaining a connection with local institutions. The EFA will not, as it has been alleged, sit on top of member states' institutions. It will be a partner in a network. It is a key issue for us that the EFA is not about overlapping of layers but about added value.

The quality of scientific advice has been mentioned. That is also a key issue. If the organisation is to have credibility not just in the European Community but internationally, it must draw together the very best scientists. We intend to draw on opinions from outside the EU as well as from within it to amass the best science possible. The key to the credibility of the institution is putting all that information in the public domain so that people can make informed choices. Therefore, the EFA will make a tremendous contribution.

Hon. Members asked whether the authority will be proactive or reactive. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made some important points about the proactive nature of our Food Standards Agency, which holds hearings, involves the public and is developing a new approach. I am pleased to say that the European authority will play a proactive role. It will be able to take up matters that are in its remit; it will not simply react to events, but explore what goes on in the wider community.

I said in my opening remarks that we want to ensure that the EFA's remit is tight, with a core focus on food and food safety. Other issues, such as animal welfare and plant health, impinge on food safety, but we have managed to amend the mission statement for the authority so that its role is limited to providing scientific opinion on the other issues when they have no bearing on food or feed. That will occupy no more than 5 per cent. of the authority's overall work. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that the EFA's remit is focused on food safety, not other matters.

Hon. Members asked about tightening country of origin labelling. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East is clearly knowledgeable about that and holds strong opinions. We are pressing for changes to the rules to provide clear, unambiguous country of origin labelling. We appreciate that consumers want improvements in labelling, and it is a priority for us. The Food Standards Agency is about to review current guidance to ascertain whether we can toughen it. It is clearly important to the public.

I was asked whether, had the EFA existed, it could have identified the problems of BSE. It is difficult to speculate about that time, when little knowledge was available. I was also asked whether the EFA could have prevented the French from banning British beef. I should like to believe that the advisory forum, which will comprise member states, could have met to share knowledge and expertise and work for consensus. The action by the French was illegal and is a matter for the European Court. However, I like to believe that when we can share knowledge and expertise maturely, we can prevent such difficulties from arising.

Mr. Breed

On that basis, there will be no change. If the EFA pronounces on a matter, the member state can simply ignore it and carry on regardless.

Ms Blears

Yes, but I hope that, in a system whereby everybody is engaged and has a stake in the process, people will share information and expertise and reach a consensus. If not, the EFA could not prevent people from taking unilateral action.

Cost and compliance were mentioned. There are high level proposals for traceability; people will have to record where they buy a product and to whom they sell it. The majority of businesses make some record, for example, of an invoice or a VAT return. Consequently, there are no new specific requirements to fill in forms; there is no increased bureaucracy, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East will be delighted to know. It is simply a matter of recording in the way that businesses already operate. We have held extensive consultations with small and medium-sized enterprises and were assured that compliance costs for business can be met.

Let us consider the EFA's involvement in nutrition. It will play a role in functional foods, babyfoods and so on, but its purpose is not to run campaigns on healthy eating. Those are matters for member states, which must decide what they wish to promote. Its purpose is not to harmonise so that all member states have homogenous food and diets. All of us who enjoy consuming different European food must strive to maintain its diversity.

The debate has been interesting because genuine tensions have been expressed. Some hon. Members said that the EFA should be independent and robust if it is to have integrity and credibility, while the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East wants to control it and ensure that politicians determine its actions. In our negotiations, we have striven to push forward the boundaries of openness and transparency to try to ensure an element of public scrutiny. That does not accord with traditions in some other countries, and it is fair to say that the Food Safety Agency and our approach take a lead on involving the public and consumers. That is the right way forward. If this body, whose aim will be to bring together the sources of the very best science, is to have credibility and re-establish consumers' confidence in their food, it is crucial for it to be seen as being able to say things without fear or favour on the basis of the scientific evidence before it.

The cost will be 24.9 million euros initially, rising to 44 million after three years. No extra funding will be needed: I understand that provision has already been made. As for location, there are currently bids for Barcelona, Helsinki, Parma and Lille. The Government have not taken a view of the appropriate location; each will be considered on its merits.

Media provision is important. Obviously the public will want to know that information is being disseminated widely, arid that they know what is emerging from the scientific committees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—indeed, I think all hon. Members—mentioned the division between risk assessment and risk management, which will clearly be a fundamental issue for the authority. The authority's purpose is to provide advice in order to inform the development of policy, and there is a clear difference between those two roles. If a new authority had a complete remit, without leaving member states or the Commission any role, we would risk creating a monolithic approach without the necessary flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of individual states.

The whole debate has concerned getting the balance right between independence and credibility—balancing control and advice, and achieving balance between the parts of the authority that will need to act and the basis on which such action should be informed. Such considerations are important, but I believe that the balance is right.

Third-country imports have been mentioned. That, too, is an important issue: consumers want to know that they can rely on the information that is available. I believe that the Food and Veterinary Office makes regular enforcement visits and gives regular guidance on the matter.

I entirely understand the commitment of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East to these issues. Let me encourage him to be a little more optimistic, and not to assume that this institution will not make a difference. It will make a difference: it will bring together the best scientific knowledge that we have.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Union document no. 14174/00, a draft Council regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food; and supports the Government's objective of the introduction of effective arrangements to re-establish and maintain consumer confidence in the regulation of food safety at European Union level.