Food Standards Agency (Hansard, 8 February 1999)

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his estimate of the number of(a) retail businesses and (b) catering businesses which will be liable for the proposed Food Standards Agency levy which employ (a) fewer than 10 people and (b) fewer than 100 people; [68969]
(2) what is his estimate of the number of premises proposed to be liable for the payment of the Food Standards Agency levy which have (a) fewer than 10 employees and (b) fewer than 100 employees. [68968]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
There are about 175,000 retail food premises and about 340,000 catering premises in the United Kingdom, but data on the number of people they employ are not collected centrally. However, data on premises in which food represents the majority activity of business indicate that around 80 per cent. of premises employ fewer than 10 people, and around 99 per cent. employ fewer than 100 people. The Government will be seeking updated information on the number of premises liable for the levy from local authorities as part of the consultation process.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed levy to fund the Food Standards Agency will be imposed on individual schools. [68975]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer on 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
Retail and catering premises required to register under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991, as amended (and equivalent Northern Ireland regulations), including those within schools, would be required to pay the proposed levy.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Government concluded that it would be more complex and costly to operate a levy to fund the Food Standards Agency which was confined to large food retailers. [68977]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
The entire food industry stands to benefit from greater consumer confidence, and therefore the Government propose to collect the levy from registered food premises at the final point of sale to the consumer. We believe that a flat rate fee, at the modest level proposed, represents a simple and transparent way of collecting the levy.
123W

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of the total yield of the proposed levy for the Food Standards Agency which will come from small businesses. [68979]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
This depends on the definition of 'small business' used. Under most standard definitions, a significant majority of food premises would fall within this category.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts have been made to quantify in financial terms the benefits which the proposed Food Standards Agency will bring to its stakeholders. [68980]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
The principal benefits of the Food Standards Agency will be the protection of public health and greater consumer confidence. These benefits cannot be quantified in purely financial terms.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the proposed levy to fund the Food Standards Agency will apply to premises dealing only in fresh fruit and vegetables. [68981]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
The Government believe that the entire food industry stands to benefit from the Food Standards Agency and therefore proposes that all retail and catering premises required to register under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991, as amended (and equivalent Northern Ireland regulations), should make a contribution to the additional costs of the Agency. The only exception proposed is for premises whose only food sales are wrapped confectionery, soft drinks, crisps and similar wrapped products.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposals for a levy on businesses to pay for the proposed Food Standards Agency has been considered by the Better Regulation Task Force; and if he will make a statement. [68982]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
124W
The proposals have been considered by the Better Regulation Unit, which supports the Better Regulation Task Force. The views of the Better Regulation Task Force are being sought as part of the current consultation, and any comments they make will be taken into account as part of this exercise.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health when considering criteria for determining exemptions to the Food Standards Agency levy which premises the Government regarded as exceptionally vulnerable to the effects of the charge. [68978]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 3 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
No distinct categories of premises were identified as exceptionally vulnerable.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the consultation draft of the Food Standards Bill provides that the levy on food premises may be different in different areas. [68976]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
The provisions in the draft Bill are enabling provisions, which have been drafted so as to allow flexibility to modify the details of the levy and the level at which it is set in secondary legislation, as necessary, subject to the approval of Parliament.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the level of the proposed Food Standards Agency levy upon business will be the same in all parts of the United Kingdom. [68970]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
The Government's intention is that the levy should apply in all parts of the UK in a consistent way.

§ Mr. Chope
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of businesses for which a flat rate levy of £90 for the Food Standards Agency would create significant problems. [68971]

§ Mr. Rooker
[holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
A £90 annual levy equates to a levy of £1.73 a week. I do not anticipate that businesses will find that sum difficult to afford, but we hope to get more information on this through the consultation process currently underway.