White paper on food safety : Wednesday 12 April 2000 / European Standing Committe C.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. European Standing Committe C.
Date:
2000
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: White paper on food safety : Wednesday 12 April 2000 / European Standing Committe C. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    4/20 (page 2)
    [Ms Gisela Stuart] should remain with the Council and the European Parliament, which are to act on proposals from the Commission. But the identification of the regulatory options needs to be carried out in the closest possible collaboration with those who carry out scientific risk assessment. The approach accords with the all- inclusive remit that the Government have given to the Food Standards Agency. There are arguments about the scope of the EFA. The Commission will need authoritative scientific advice on nutrition-related issues. We have no problem with providing that. There is potential for the exchange of ideas. However, we have reservations about the EFA being actively involved in some areas, such as the promotion of healthy eating, which is better and more appropriately carried out at a national and sometimes local level. The EFA could extend its powers by broadening its responsibility to take in labelling, which has direct safety implications. We also need to look more carefully at the funding of the authority. The Commission has proposed that it should have a budget of only 100 million ecu, which is equivalent to £62.5 million. To put that into perspective, the annual budget for the Food Standards Agency is about £145 million. The proposed funding will have implications for the scope of the new agency’s role. The proposals do not make the relationship with national agencies clear. There should be a strategy for dealing with disagreement. A consultative committee comprising the heads of national agencies might be a useful mechanism to seek consensus. The White Paper considers the issue of research. Given the budget constraints, it is unlikely that the new body will have much scope for commissioning research. A structured network to draw together existing research would be welcome. The issue of accountability is not clear. The White Paper refers to an independent body that is supported by the Commission, with a high level of accountability to European institutions and citizens, but with a legal existence and personality separate from current EU institutions. We and other interested parties will want more detail on that. The Food Standards Agency has an open method of working. Its agendas are published and some of its meetings are held in public. The way in which input from individual citizens will be represented is not clear. We similarly feel that enforcement and control should remain the responsibility of member states. In conclusion, the proposal for a new European Food Authority raises issues. As I said, the Government response will be submitted to the Commission by the end of April. We welcome the current proposals—they are the right step forward— but we must consult with other bodies in the UK. Whatever body results, we must ensure that the consumer is at the heart of the regulations and that it commands the confidence of consumers and member states. Several hon. Members rose— The Chairman: Order. We have until 11.30 am for questions to the Minister. I remind members of the Committee that questions should be brief and asked one ata time. There is likely to be ample opportunity to ask several questions. Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden): The latter part of the Under-Secretary’s statement is important and will set the tone for the questions. She hinted that the Government would seek a process to bring about a resolution should a national food standards agency— there are eight among European Union member states—find itself in dispute with the new food authority. What confidence has the Under-Secretary in a consensual consultative approach to upholding food standards if the UK were to find itself with higher food standards than elsewhere in Europe? Ms Stuart: It is correct to say that eight of the 15 member states have an independent body. The United Kingdom has tremendous scope to be one of the leading members as our body is more developed than any of the others. Sweden, Finland and France have bodies based on science only. Ireland’s authority has wider remit. Portugal, Greece and Belgium are in the process of establishing an organisation. While the aim of many of the bodies is roughly the same, where they are coming from is different. Reaching agreement will be slightly difficult and the White Paper is not clear. One suggestion worth considering is for a commission that would meet regularly and would have accountability. However, as with all European Union regulations, a clear line must be agreed. That is why the current lack of coherence in terms of risk management and risk communication is a potential difficulty. We need agreement on a coherent line. We want to take consultation further because we are not satisfied that the current proposals are sufficiently robust. Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): Given that the proposed authority is to be, effectively, a scientific and advisory authority, to what extent will its determination of the scientific evidence be considered definitive when the European Commission considers competitive matters? For example, if we claimed that the French authorities were acting anti-competitively by banning British beef, to what extent would scientific advice from the new authority be considered the definitive statement on the actuality? Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend raises an issue on which we have had a practical example of such a conflict. Scientific advice is definitive for only a certain time. It must always be subject to further review and we must be open to that fact. The new authority’s role is to draw together the available scientific advice to arrive at the most authoritative conclusion possible. We are also committed to ensuring that no one institution or interest should have an overpowering influence over the authority’s determination. It is a two-way process for the European Food Authority and any definitive statement will be based on current research evidence. Any issue of anti-competitiveness is part of the internal market negotiations. As has happened when conflict has arisen, if a member state is found to be in breach of the anti-competitiveness provisions, further