DRAFT GENERAL FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT SPECIFIC FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT GENERAL FOOD LAW (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019

Debate between Caroline Flint and Steve Brine

Tuesday 5th March 2019 General Committees

[Steve Brine]

Yes. The regulations transpose into domestic law the good public health requirements that we are part of as a member state. If we agree a deal or a withdrawal agreement next week that is subsequently legislated for, everything that we currently enjoy as a member state will roll over during the transition period. If we then negotiate a future trade deal that incorporates all those undertakings, the regulations will not be necessary, but it is about putting the necessary regulations in place to ensure a seamless bridge between membership and being a third country to protect public health, which is what I am interested in.

The instruments will ensure that UK domestic legislation that directly implements applicable EU regulations continues to function effectively after exit day. The proposed amendments are critical to ensuring minimal disruption to general food and feed law, food hygiene and controls on contaminants if we do not reach a deal. The regulations on general food and feed law, food hygiene and controls on contaminants are key to ensuring the safety of food and thereby public health. Consumers in the UK will benefit from a high standard of food and feed safety and quality. The Government are committed to ensuring that the high standards are maintained.

The main changes are that the instruments will transfer responsibilities incumbent on the European Commission to Ministers in England, Wales, Scotland, and the devolved authority in Northern Ireland. They also transfer to the relevant food safety authority the responsibilities currently incumbent on the European Food Safety Authority, the body that provides scientific advice on food safety to the European Commission, the European Parliament and EU member states. That authority will be the Food Standards Agency in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Food Standards Scotland north of the border.

Let me take the regulations in turn, because they start very general and get more specific. The General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that Regulation (EC) 178/2002, which lays down fundamental principles underpinning food law, basic food and feed business requirements, as well as describing certain functions carried out by EU institutions, will function effectively on exit day. The regulation states that food placed on the market must be safe to eat, and it provides for other fundamental food and feed safety and hygiene requirements, including presentation, traceability—we must be able to look one step back and one step forward in the supply chain—the enforcement of regulations, and open and transparent public consultation during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law. I used the word “presentation”, which is to ensure that we do not mislead consumers. Members may remember that a few years ago there were a lot of concerned constituents because of press coverage about horse meat being sold as certain other meats, and these regulations will ensure that food is what it says on the tin.

The General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that Regulation (EC) 852/2004, which contains basic food hygiene requirements for all food businesses, will function effectively on exit day. It sets out the general requirements for the hygienic production of foodstuffs by all food business operators, through the provision of effective and proportionate controls throughout the food chain to the final consumer. Its farm-to-fork scope covers basic hygiene requirements for food businesses, as well as hygiene requirements relevant for the primary production sector.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. As a former public health Minister, I am interested to hear what the Minister says about this issue, and I feel reassured that as we leave the European Union there is no question of the UK falling behind on food safety standards. In many respects, while being a member of the EU we have been at the forefront of pushing higher standards—in fact, we probably have higher standards than a number of EU member states. Will the Minister say a little more to reassure the public? There have been some wild scare stories out there about how Sodom and Gomorrah will somehow arrive if we leave the EU, and that there will be lightning bolts from the sky, earthquakes, and we will fall off a cliff edge and no longer be able to buy a portion of fish and chips without worrying about our public health.

[Steve Brine]

I thank one of my esteemed predecessors for that point. When we had a referendum on our membership of the EU, we heard talk of “take back control”. Ultimately, that was about many things—it was about sovereignty, the economy and trade, but I do not think it was about weakening the public food standards that our constituents expect. When I delved into this area of policy as part of my portfolio for these statutory instruments, I realised how much heavy lifting goes on in the European Commission to protect that food security, which we benefited from as a member state. I also realised—the right hon. Lady made the point well—how much we have shaped that. The idea that when we are a third country we will want to diverge from those standards is for the birds. If anything, I want us to increase food safety standards, and the idea that leaving the European Union will leave us as a country, and our constituents and the public exposed, is indeed “Project Fear”, and people should be more responsible in the way they use such language. I thank the right hon. Lady for her point.

Regulation (EC) 852/2004 contains a key requirement that food businesses—except primary producers—must put in place food safety procedures based on the principles of the internationally recognized hazard analysis critical control point procedures. That means that each food business must assess hazards to food safety, and put in place steps to ensure they are controlled, thus ensuring the high level of consumer protection that we all expect.

The Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 relate to Regulation (EC) 853/2004, which covers specific hygiene rules for products of animal origin, and Regulation (EC) 854/2004, which relates to the organisation of official controls for products of animal origin. Let me unpack that. We are talking about meat, fish, dairy and eggs. Regulation (EC) 853/2004, for instance, is the regulation by which we determine what kind of wash we might use on certain products. Our standards, as a member state, say—just to give an example that somebody might be interested in—how we wash chicken after it has been killed. Currently, we wash with drink-water. We will continue to wash with drink-water and the standards that we transpose protect that safety standard, which exists for a reason, and long may that continue. That regulation is about the processing stage—cutting plant standards and standards relating to the wash, for instance.

Regulation (EC) 854/2004, which relates to the specific food hygiene regulations, concerns vet involvement. When I have been to cutting plants, I have seen vets’ involvement at the pre-kill stage, to ensure that the animals have no sign of disease, and at the post-kill phase—which is not to be done after breakfast, I would suggest—to check the carcasses and ensure that there are no signs of ill health. These specific hygiene rules set out the requirements and the specific health standards for establishments on land, or at sea, for the slaughtering process, as I have said, and for the storing or transporting of products of animal origin.

The fourth and final set of regulations in this esteemed grouping, the Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, will ensure that the provisions in the three main pieces of EU contaminants legislation continue to function effectively after exit day. These are Council Regulation (EEC) No. 315/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006, which is the main one, which sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. For instance, lead in offal is a possible concern, and that regulation ensures that the maximum level of certain contaminants in that foodstuff is not exceeded.

Finally, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 124/2009 sets maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats—easy for me to say—in food resulting from the unavoidable carryover of those substances in non-target feed, while associated regulations relate to appropriate methods of sampling and analysis.

The three contaminants regulations protect consumers by ensuring that they are safeguarded from the adverse effects of exposure to contaminants that may be present in food. Chemical contaminants may be present in food from the environment or as a result of growing conditions, which is perfectly natural; it is part of the natural evolution and the natural supply chain. The legislation sets out maximum limits for those certain contaminants in food and provides a clear legal basis on which enforcement action—by local authorities, by trading standards officers or by ports’ health officers—may be taken, where necessary, to protect consumers by facilitating the removal of unsafe food from the food chain.

There are a couple of other points to make. The first is about the impact on industry. I am clear that these instruments do not introduce any changes for food businesses in how they are regulated and how they are run, nor do they introduce extra burdens. These instruments just provide continuity for businesses and the protection of consumers’ interests, and ensure that enforcement of the regulations can continue in the same way—I gave three examples of that. These changes will ensure that a robust system of controls will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally.

It is also important to note that, as with many of the statutory instruments that I have been involved with—in fact, as with all of them—the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for these SIs. We have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of these instruments. That ongoing engagement has been very warmly welcomed, and I place on the record my thanks to all the officials and Ministers who we have worked with.

In conclusion, these instruments are necessary to ensure that our food safety and hygiene legislation continues to work effectively after exit day. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support the amendments proposed in these four instruments, to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety, and public health controls, which our constituents rightly expect. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Flint and Steve Brine

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

We are working on an alcohol strategy, which is being led by the Home Office, and I have spoken to a number of stakeholders in the last two weeks at the various roundtables I have been holding. On the question of alcohol-dependent parents with children, we are working through local authorities, which is important, but as part of the investment that I have mentioned, there is also £500,000 going into expanding the helpline provision for children who find themselves in this position. I have heard time and again when talking to children affected by this that being able to say that they are not alone in this is often a great place to start. The helpline will be very important in that regard.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the comments made by the Public Health Minister today. I also welcome how open he has been to cross-party lobbying on this issue, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Secretary of State. The £6 million is welcome news. Just to put it in perspective, more than 4,000 children phone Childline each year about alcohol use—it is the biggest concern that children have about their parents when they ring that service. We have something in Doncaster called the Family MOT—Moving On Together—and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to see some of the good practice that is going on around the country. Will he tell us more about how that £6 million is likely to be spread around the country?

[Steve Brine]

I probably cannot do all of that without trying Mr Speaker’s patience, but I should like to thank the right hon. Lady, who is one of my predecessors, for the work that she does through the all-party parliamentary group on children of alcoholics, and with the charity Adfam. Charities and other third sector organisations will play a key part in putting in bids to work with local authorities, as part of the £6 million. Public Health England is leading on that, and I look forward to having ongoing discussions with her and with other Members who I know have a deeply held personal interest in this matter.

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Caroline Flint and Steve Brine

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

Centrica, which owns British Gas, has passed on the largest share of profits to its shareholders but made the least amount of investment, but all the companies are making good profits.

What we have not seen is a market that encourages competition to the extent that the energy companies strive to compete with each other on price and to win the support of their customers. That is also what the motion is about, because the fourth myth is that our proposals will somehow undermine competition, but our market reform proposals would increase competition. They would level the playing field and enable independent generators and small suppliers to compete more effectively. Of course, no energy company, big or small, wants us to do something that reduces its profits, but suppliers such as the Co-op recognise that in order to restore trust the people need to see a clean break with the past. Smaller suppliers such as Ecotricity and Ovo, which might not necessarily like our price freeze, nevertheless say that it does not threaten their viability.

The fifth myth is that the problems we see in our energy market today can somehow all be laid at the door of the previous Administration, a Labour Administration who—the House might recall—introduced winter fuel payments, which the current Secretary of State described at the time as a gimmick, insulated over 2 million homes through Warm Front and lifted over 1.5 million people out of fuel poverty. Before Labour came to power, consumers could not even switch electricity supplier. As he knows, the restriction on suppliers also being generators was removed in 1993, under the previous Conservative Government, which led to the vertical integration we have seen over the past two decades. If the Secretary of State wants to compare records, I am happy to have that debate, but I think that the public would be better served if we all engaged in a proper debate on how to reform the market for the future.

The Secretary of State might not agree with our proposals, and that is his choice. He will have to account to the 47,550 bill payers in his constituency if he opposes our price freeze in the Lobby this evening. I believe that the public deserve a proper debate. The motion presents the House with clear proposals to restore people’s faith in the energy market and get them a fairer deal.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. She mentioned smaller suppliers. She will be aware of Utilita, one of the good small energy companies, which is based in my constituency. I wonder whether she is aware of the comments of its managing director, Bill Bullen, who wrote in The Times shortly after the Leader of the Opposition’s conference speech that with any price freeze

“the impact on smaller energy suppliers will be much harder felt and the level of competition in the market will drop.”

Is that now an Opposition policy intention?

Jobs and Growth in a Low-carbon Economy

Debate between Caroline Flint and Steve Brine

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I will make some progress before giving way again.

In government, we set up a system of feed-in tariffs to support solar and other forms of microgeneration. Within 18 months the solar industry had grown from 3,000 employees in 450 businesses to 25,000 people in nearly 4,000 businesses. Our vision was shared by many other countries; Germany installed half the world’s solar panels and supported 250,000 jobs and Australia could boast at Durban about the completion of 1 million homes with solar PV. What can this Government boast about? Cutting off an industry at its knees put hundreds of businesses at risk, destroyed thousands of jobs—5,000 according to the Government’s own estimate—increased the import of Chinese solar panels and denied millions of households the chance of a little more control over their energy bills. I will not dwell on the catastrophic series of events that have left us where we are. Suffice it to say, even the Energy and Climate Change Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), has stated that

“the damage to both investor confidence and to some consumers could have been avoided.”

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady’s speech—there are a number of Government Members who are. Is she seriously suggesting that she left a feed-in tariffs regime that was fit for purpose and that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), did not have to salvage it from the car crash he found when he took office?

[Caroline Flint]

Well, it took the Government 18 months to give six weeks’ notice to the industry, but the truth is that Labour always said that this scheme and others that support fledgling sectors need to be reviewed and that prices will change and come down, but not in the way the Secretary of State and his predecessor indicated. It caused mayhem in the system and has left other business investors in green technologies questioning whether they should dip their toe in the water. The fact is that the Minister is now offering pie-in-the-sky predictions of the UK overtaking Germany in solar capacity by 2020. He needs to get real. Just how can he cut support for solar power by 70% in six months and still expect to overtake Germany by the end of the decade?