HL Deb 23 June 2004 vol 662 cc1338-44

9.1 p.m.

Baroness Byford rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 11 May, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1301).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It deals with a question arising directly from the report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. I thank the committee for its keen work throughout on the various statutory instruments that it considers.

My concern with this statutory instrument is the arbitrary manner in which the European Commission has set the maximum levels of copper and zinc in the face of the report from its own Committee on Animal Nutrition. It has then compounded the error by setting the levels of iron, cobalt and manganese without waiting for the outcomes of discussions with other member states—perhaps the Minister will agree with that.

The result is a statutory instrument that may be required by EU law but bears very little resemblance to the position agreed by the states Europe-wide. Can the Minister say whether, at the negotiations in Brussels, the Government voted against the EU proposal that has resulted in this statutory instrument? Is there any possibility that the levels may be revised, and, if so, when is that likely to be? If the levels are subsequently changed but this legislation has been implemented, will our feed manufacturers have incurred sizeable but unnecessary costs?

In the correspondence between the chairman of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee and Melanie Johnson MP, there is considerable reference to the timetable for introducing the legislation. The letter from the Minister implies that the adoption of the directive during the public consultation on the regulations was not expected; otherwise, why would the consultation have been set up just then?

The letter also excuses the current situation with reference to the Cabinet Office Small Business Unit's guidelines on consultations and the 12-week interval required. I should point out that the 12-week period is normally honoured and not breached by Defra or any other body. Can the Minister explain the timings and give us the true reasons for them?

I refer in particular to the regulatory impact assessment, in which noble Lords may wish to note paragraphs 2.9, 11.3 and 10.4. The committee expressed concern over the robustness of the scientific evidence for the changing levels of five trace elements in animal feed. In setting the inclusion levels for copper and zinc in the regulations, the European Commission disregarded the opinions of its Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition—SCAN—and proceeded without waiting for the conclusions of its discussions with member states' experts in respect of iron, cobalt and manganese. It is referred to later that the committee may wish to know that these regulations bring EU legislation into force only in England. Therefore, full transposition to other areas of the United Kingdom may still be some way off. Can the Minister give us some idea when it might be transposed to other regions?

That is probably enough, because I know that the noble Lord will have had a chance to look at the Merits Committee's comments.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 11 May, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1301).—(Baroness Byford.)

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, obviously I welcome this statutory instrument emanating from the Department of Health. This area has caused considerable problems. With the Food Standards Agency being involved as well, certainly in Britain things have been tightened up considerably. I do not expect the Minister, as a health Minister, to answer some of my points, but I would be grateful if he would take account of them.

I have been concerned for a long time, since the BSE crisis, that legislation has not always been tight enough in this area. I am sure we all remember that the reduction of heat treatment of meat in the early 1980s had serious consequences for contaminated meat protein that went into the animal food chain and subsequently into the human food chain. We all know the consequences of that. We must not underestimate the impact of these statutory instruments. I hope that we shall get round some of the problems that we have had in the past.

I mention in passing—as Members of this House will have seen—that a ship was stopped in the Bristol Channel by Greenpeace this week as it was suspected of containing GM ingredients to be fed to animals via an animal feed company operating in Bristol. What is happening about the issue of GM in animal feed? What impact assessments have been made in relation to human health? How much of this is going on? I do not necessarily expect the Minister to be able to answer those questions now. Perhaps he will write to me.

I am particularly pleased to see that the blending down and mixing of contaminated and uncontaminated feeds has been banned. I was always suspicious of that, and I thought it a very bad practice indeed. I am glad to see that it has been banned. As I understand it, the statutory instrument underlines the position regarding dioxins, vitamin and mineral additives. As I understand it, the regulations increase the maximum level of dioxins. I am unhappy about that. Dioxins are dangerous substances. What is the view of the Government on that? I would be keen to see no dioxins, but I know that they are in the environment and are difficult to deal with. This seems to me to be an important issue. If the EU is authorising this increase, I am unhappy about that.

The situation regarding pet products seems to be all right. It is interesting to note that new protein additives are being allowed. I hope that they have been well tested. Certainly, their impact on animal health and human health is known. I note that the animal feed companies, which have a difficult job to do and give an excellent service to the farming community, none the less have used computer programmes to great effect for least cost rations. Some sources of protein are cheaper than others, and the price per tonne tends to go down as a result. So, it is important that the input into the feed is of excellent quality and does not affect the health of the animals or of the humans who may eat products from the animals.

It is an important statutory instrument. I welcome its coming into force, but, as I said, I am not happy about some aspects of it. The issue needs continuous close monitoring.

Lord Warner

My Lords, there are two points that have been raised separately and a lot of detailed points. I shall respond to the major points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, but I graciously accept his offer to explore the detail of some of the other matters that he raised, on which I am not briefed to respond. I promise to write to the noble Lord after taking advice. I shall come to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in a moment.

The points raised by the noble Lord about dioxins relate to Commission Directive 2003/57/EC, which makes changes to some existing maximum permitted levels of dioxins, which were originally set in 2001. It introduces new levels for dioxins, when present in certain classes of additive.

As I understand it, the directive introduces new higher levels for dioxins in fish protein hydrolysates containing more than 20 per cent fat to reflect unavoidable environmental levels of the contaminant and the nature of dioxin molecules. Dioxins are, of course, hydrophobic and tend to concentrate in fatty tissues. It is therefore appropriate for the maximum permitted levels for fish protein hydrolysates with a higher fat content to be adjusted to permit their continued use in the feed chain.

The directive introduces new limits for dioxins in fresh fish used for the direct feeding of pets and zoo and circus animals. They match the permitted levels for fish for human consumption and do not pose any risk to consumer health.

The directive also introduces a higher limit for dioxins in kaolinitic clays authorised for use in feed as binders. The current maximum permitted level for such clays was laid down in 1999, following the discovery of high levels of dioxins in clays from certain sources. It was set at around the limit of quantification. However, the figure of 0.5 nanogrammes toxic equivalent per kilogramme is being increased slightly to 0.75, to be in line with levels set subsequently for other feed ingredients. The same level is being applied to other minerals used in feed.

That is the background to the directive. I will inquire into the other issues that the noble Lord raised and will write to him.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised a range of matters relating to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1334/2003. I cannot answer all her questions this evening. I will give her what information I can on the points that she raised, and I undertake to read Hansard carefully, take advice and write to her on some of the more detailed points.

The Commission regulation amends the permitted maximum inclusion rates in feed for a number of trace elements, as the noble Baroness suggested. The trace elements are added to feeding stuffs to help animals to meet their nutritional needs and must be specifically authorised for that use. Many of the inclusion levels were set many years ago, and they require updating in the light of scientific knowledge about the nutritional needs of animals and having regard to the potential impact on human health of high levels of certain additives.

In essence, the regulation reduces the level of certain trace elements—iron, cobalt, copper, manganese and zinc—which is in the interests of public health, as well as animal health.

9.15 p.m.

As the noble Baroness suggested, I recognise that some concerns have been expressed that the European Commission and member states may have appeared to have disregarded opinions from the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition. However, SCAN was not the only group to provide advice on revised maximum inclusion rates. Member states' experts also provided advice. In addition, the revised maximum inclusion rates for the use of copper and zinc-based additives were not as low in some cases as SCAN had suggested. Those substances can help to reduce certain conditions in young animals; for example, diarrhoea in piglets. It was felt that large decreases in maximum inclusion rates for those additives occurring at about the same time as a ban on antibiotic growth promoters from 2006 might result in animal welfare problems. Some of the maximum limits for copper and zinc contained in Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1334/2003 therefore differ from those advised by the scientific committee.

As I have said, other key experts advised less radical changes to the limits, which would reduce the impact on the environment and help protect animal welfare with no negative implications for the public health. That is why it was this alternative viewpoint that the Commission and the member states accepted as the basis for this regulation. That is the context in which the decision was taken by the member states. We believe that it is a sound one.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but he did not answer my question. I had hoped that it was a fairly straightforward question and not one on which he would need to seek advice. Obviously, it was not a unanimous decision between the member states. Did the UK Government vote against? That is a basic question to which I thought that I would be given an answer.

Lord Warner

My Lords, as I understand it, we voted for it.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. The Minister will probably be aware that I shall not be voting against this statutory instrument. Obviously, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee raised certain questions that I have raised again tonight.

The Minister explained that SCAN was not the only committee which was consulted. I do not understand how a decision is made about what direction, research or authority the Commission will use on which to make an overall decision. That is not something for tonight, particularly after the five-hour health debate to which the Minister responded earlier. I certainly would not press him in that way. But he has said that he will follow up my specific questions that he was unable to answer directly.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, again for raising specific points. I always think that praying against statutory instruments is quite difficult. We are fairly limited in what we can do, but it certainly helps to give us more direct information from the various statutory instruments. I shall read carefully the Minister's response. I thank him, particularly for his courtesy in staying late. I know that it has been a long day for him. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.