Exiting the European Union (Food and Agriculture)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I rise in support of all four statutory instruments. While this House, in its wisdom, has decided to send our Prime Minister on her hands and knees to beg for an extension to our leaving the European Union, we do not yet know what the EU’s counter-offer will be or whether the terms of that extension will be palatable and acceptable to the House. It therefore remains imperative that we continue to ensure that we have an operable lawbook for day one should we still be required to leave at the end of this month without an agreement.

The vast majority of the provisions in all the statutory instruments relate to the transfer of functions, principally from the European Commission to the food safety authority, which means Food Standards Scotland or the Food Standards Agency in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in other instances to the appropriate authority, which largely means the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

There is something of an irony in our having a debate on the Floor of the House about whether, in all these statutory instruments, it is acceptable to replace “Commission” with “Food Safety Authority”, yet the original powers to which every one of these statutory instruments relates were imposed on us directly by the European Union, typically through implementing Acts or delegated Acts. There would have been little or no scrutiny in this House, and probably the best that could have been expected is a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee or, in some instances, the tabling of an explanatory memorandum before Parliament. The truth is that the most pernicious Henry VIII power we have seen in this country in modern times is section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which has led to widespread changes in primary legislation.

Today I will focus on a specific point that is relevant to all four statutory instruments, which is the respective roles of the Food Standards Agency, on the one hand, and Ministers, on the other. The hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Stroud (Dr Drew) both mentioned the role of DEFRA, as the Department in which much of the technical expertise rests. Having experienced it for five and a half years as a Minister, I know there is something of an issue around our current food standards architecture in this country.

The Food Standards Agency was established in the wake of the BSE crisis, and it was made independent in a very special way, through statute, to be entirely insulated from the Government and Ministers. Although the Department of Health and Social Care is its sponsoring Department, Health Ministers seldom show direct policy interest in the FSA’s decisions, rightly recognising that it was established to be entirely independent.

However, there is an issue in how the FSA was set up, because the events that preceded its formation mean that, first, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, latterly, DEFRA have been more divorced from its work than they ought to have been, as DEFRA is the Whitehall Department with the vast majority of technical and policy knowledge in this area.

I have always had very good relations with Heather Hancock, the chair of the FSA. However, I have always sensed that the FSA board, collectively, is sometimes prone to being somewhat supercilious in its denial of the expertise in DEFRA and, worse, is prone to making rather unfair assumptions about DEFRA’s motives in advancing issues or concerns on particular policy fronts. That is, of course, until something goes wrong.

In 2013, when we faced the horsemeat scandal, Health Ministers did not want to get involved, the FSA sat on its hands and it was left to the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), to step into the breach. DEFRA took control of the crisis and took ownership of events by setting up a review of food crime and crafting a policy that resulted in a new food crime unit.

When these regulations were originally considered, some on the FSA board sought significantly to extend the FSA’s powers by taking direct decision-making responsibility in some of these areas, which would have gone a long way beyond its current remit. The Minister’s predecessor and I resisted that approach, and I am pleased to see that the approach we recommended is reflected in all these statutory instruments. We proposed, first, that the FSA should give independent advice to Ministers and that that advice should be public for all to see. Secondly, we recommended that Ministers should have regard to that advice. Thirdly, we recommended that if Ministers choose not to follow the advice, they should have to publish their reasons for not doing so. Those points are reflected variously in regulation 17 of the animal feed regulations, regulation 23 of the novel food regulations and regulation 23 of the genetically modified food and feed regulations.

This is important because, as a holding pattern, we need to ensure there is a presumption for following the advice of the Food Standards Agency. Until we have established a long-term settlement on which decisions should be taken independently by the FSA and which decisions should be taken by Ministers, subject to clear advice from the FSA, this sensible holding pattern makes absolute sense.

In the longer term, although I would not do anything to undermine the independence of the FSA—it was set up in the way it was for good reason—there is a case for trying to increase some of its democratic accountability, and there may be things we could learn, for instance, from the model we have for the Health and Safety Executive. It has now been several decades since the BSE crisis, and it is perhaps time to consider what the food safety architecture should look like, but that is a debate for another time. I fully support all four of these statutory instruments.

EU Working Time Directive (NHS)

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Howarth, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under you.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who opened the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on granting the debate. In fact, I want to pay a particular compliment to her for the comprehensive way in which she opened the debate and put forward her case.

Clearly, the working hours of all health workers, and not just junior doctors, are incredibly important to our NHS and to the quality of care that patients receive. I am glad that we have had a chance to examine those issues in some detail today in this Backbench Business Committee debate.

It is concerning that there have been reports in the press, and indeed from Members in Westminster Hall today and on other occasions, that there are cases where locum health workers have charged extortionate amounts for short-term cover in the NHS, with the potential knock-on effect on the quality of care that patients receive. As a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have said, that is a matter that is of particular concern, especially for small rural hospitals; that was a point that he made eloquently. It is an issue that I will explore in some detail later.

As we all know, the European working time directive is European Union legislation and it was enshrined in UK law as the Working Time Regulations 1998. Except for doctors in training and workers in certain excluded sectors, the directive has applied in full to most workers, including all employed doctors, since 1 October 1998. The directive imposed a general limit of 48 hours on the working week. However, it allowed member states to let individuals opt out of that limit if both an employer and an employee agreed. At the time of its introduction, the UK was the only country to take advantage of that measure and allow an individual opt-out. There are now 16 member states using total or sectoral opt-outs, as the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) correctly stated.

Particular concerns arose in relation to the health and social care sector, and importantly in relation to the position of doctors, as well as junior doctors, who, since August 2004, were gradually brought within the provisions of the directive. From August 2004 to August 2009, junior doctors’ working hours gradually moved towards compliance with the 48-hour working week. Although junior doctors in some specialties could work a 52-hour week until 31 July 2011, most junior doctors have been subject to the average 48-hour working week since 1 August 2009 and all junior doctors have been subject to that limit since 31 July 2011.

Of course, there have been particular concerns in relation to the health sector, and importantly regarding the position of doctors and junior doctors, which have led to this debate today. Although the directive applies to other sectors as well, it has always had a particular effect on the NHS, given how night-time and weekend cover has been organised in most hospitals, as we heard from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter).

I note what several Members have said, particularly in relation to training. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) commented on Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital, which is nationally and internationally renowned. The previous Labour Government commissioned the independent chair, Professor Sir John Temple, on behalf of NHS Medical Education England, to examine the impact of compliance with the directive on the quality of training. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who speaks on such matters with a great deal of experience, specifically referred to that. Although Sir John Temple’s 2010 report concluded that quality medical training can be delivered within a 48-hour working week, it also highlighted some challenges to be addressed, including round-the-clock team working. Those concerns have been echoed during today’s debate.

Other issues relating to the working times of doctors and junior doctors also need to be addressed. As Sir John Temple’s report found, there were concerns about post-graduate medical training, the objective of which is to produce fully qualified specialists who are able to provide high-quality, safe patient care. Experience of delivering services is an integral part of a junior doctor’s training. “Time for Training” highlighted some of the difficulties created for trainees and the service, especially in providing out-of-hours and weekend emergency patient care. Again, a number of Members have spoken about that today.

Some small, practical changes by employers, such as improving handovers and team-working at night, more involvement of doctors in designing their own working patterns, less reliance on junior doctors and more involvement of consultants during out-of-hours periods, have led to positive results without the need for excessive working hours. Clearly, issues remain, and I do not say that we have it right. Such matters should always be kept under review.

As I have said, the directive raises issues for health services across Europe, and Members have raised a number of concerns today about the directive’s impact on the NHS in the United Kingdom. We should consider ways to resolve those issues and be ready to work constructively with the European Commission and other member states to seek suitable solutions fit for our country’s needs.

As we know, the Commission is re-examining the directive. That is an acknowledgement that, although the legislation will remain, member states have had a number of issues with its implementation.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 2008 the previous Labour Government attempted to make some changes to the working time directive. The European Commission started that process, but the European Parliament voted at that point to abolish altogether the opt-out on the 48-hour maximum working week. The previous Government quickly slammed the lid and ran away from any idea of reforming the working time directive. Does he think that that was a mistake and that the previous Government should have persevered with their original intention?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The previous Government were right to attempt to have the matter re-examined. Whether the previous Government’s acceptance of the ruling needs to be reconsidered is something we are discussing today. We have a new Government, of course, and they have a responsibility to take up such matters with European Union institutions, as I would expect a future Labour Government to have the same responsibility to pursue concerns raised by this Parliament. Of course, it is incumbent on the Government of the day to try to resolve such matters with EU institutions. I accept that, were there a Labour Government instead of the current coalition, it would be right for our Government—irrespective of which party is in control—to take up such matters with EU institutions.

[George Eustice]

Does that mean it is the Labour party’s policy in opposition to seek to reform the working time directive?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Labour party’s position is to support much of what the working time directive has brought about. Some real issues have been raised by Members of all parties in today’s debate. I recognise a lot of the issues and concerns, and it is incumbent on the Government of the day to resolve such matters to best suit the needs of the member state—in our case, the needs of the NHS throughout the United Kingdom. We support the working time directive, however, and its positive achievements, which have not been touched on to a great extent in today’s debate. There have been some positives.

We therefore have reservations about changes to the European working time directive. High-quality, safe patient care and the maintenance of further enhancement of the quality of training and education for junior doctors are important. I note the issues raised today, and specific areas must be looked at. We heard concerns about the maintenance of training standards, but patient safety must be paramount, and we should co-operate with all interested parties to develop sensible, workable and achievable solutions to the problems. If we allow a relaxation of the European working time directive for junior doctors, the danger is that we run the risk of a gradual return to their working dangerously long hours. I urge the Government to tread carefully because as the hon. Member for Bristol North West said, to be fair, some aspects of the working time directive had laudable aims. As was echoed in a number of contributions today, we do not want to see a return to the dangerous working hours worked by some doctors in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that could tempt me, but I will not be tempted. Each member state of the European Union is answerable for its decisions and behaviour. I believe that if one is a member of an organisation and has signed up and committed oneself to certain procedures and legal ways to do business, it is only right that the British Government—

[George Eustice]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, simply because I have only seven more minutes. I was hoping to address some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West.

We have to abide by the legalities. Otherwise, chaos will ensue and we will not in the longer term achieve what we are hoping to, even if we might on that narrow issue. Until the negotiations in Europe come to a successful end we are obliged to comply with the European Court of Justice and we cannot unilaterally go against it. The Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are working very closely together on how the WTD will apply to the UK health care sector. Both Departments agree that we need to keep the opt-out and it would be a grave error to surrender it or to abandon it for other concessions. That is a red line for us. We have to keep the opt-out.

We also want to solve the issue of flexible on-call time and compensatory rest that allows the NHS to work within the current constraints of the working time directive. Those are both very important issues to the Government and to the NHS, but as I said, the bottom line is that the opt-out must stay. European social partners have opened negotiations to amend the WTD. At this stage, as hon. Members will know, it is not national Governments directly who are conducting these negotiations; they are being done through what is known as the social partners. In our case, it is NHS Employers and the Local Government Association with regard to local government and the knock-on effect for social care; that is an important part of the delivery of NHS services and social care.

That process is autonomous, and operates independently of the Commission and Council. The social partners have nine months at most to reach an agreement. That takes us up to September 2012. If an agreement is reached, it would be submitted to the Council for approval. But if an agreement cannot be reached, it will be up to the Commission to issue a proposal to change the directive. The Government have made it patently clear to everyone that long-term, sustainable growth must be the EU’s key priority. Every decision the EU makes must be geared towards that. So we will carry on working with our partners to make sure that EU measures support labour market flexibility and do not impose unfair costs on member states or businesses, or services like the NHS, that could hold back our economy and the delivery of services.

For the NHS specifically we are keen to ensure that an amended directive provides more flexibility, particularly in the areas of on-call time and compensatory rest, provided that a workable opt-out can be maintained. Responding to concerns about how the directive is being applied, particularly with regard to medical training—an issue raised by a number of hon. Members—Medical Education England, the Government’s independent advisory body on medical education, commissioned an independent review chaired by Professor Sir John Temple. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has asked Medical Education England to help improve our training practices in line with Sir John’s recommendations.

In response, Medical Education England has set up a programme known as Better Training Better Care, which will improve patient care by increasing the presence of consultants and by ensuring that service delivery supports training. It includes two important components: identifying, piloting, evaluating and sharing good education and training practice; and improving the curriculum so that training leads directly to safe, effective patient care. From an education and training perspective, handovers present an excellent opportunity for training. The Better Training Better Care programme includes pilots that will hopefully show how education and training practice can improve in that area and take advantage of those opportunities.

NHS trusts in England have responded very positively to this programme: 96 trusts applied for part of the £1 million available for NHS pilots in 2012-13. Following that competitive process, last month 16 projects with 16 NHS trusts were awarded funding for those pilots. I look forward to seeing what developments they come up with.

As I am running out of time, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, who wants to make a contribution to end the debate, that I will write to her with answers to a number of important issues that she raised. However, I will deal briefly with two issues now.

First, my hon. Friend asked what will happen in emergency situations such as a flu pandemic. I hope I can give some reassurance on that point. In such circumstances, as long as health and safety are protected in the round and the employer has correctly judged that the circumstances are exceptional, the rest requirements of the directive can be suspended.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and other Members raised the vital issue of locums, including the cost of locums and their number. I share the concern of my hon. Friends about the use of locums. They play an important role when there are short-term staff shortages, or when there is illness or holidays, and there may be a limited impact of the EWTD that means that trusts will be employing locums when they might not otherwise do so. However, the evidence about the extent of that practice is not as extensive and meaningful as we would like it to be; we would like to get a fuller picture. Nevertheless, whatever the reason for the use of locums, we are concerned across the board about their extensive use and the add-on costs that brings to the NHS. That is why we are working through our training programmes and through the Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention programme to seek to minimise unnecessary use of locums and to bring down the number employed, thereby reducing costs. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, there has been an 11% reduction in the employment of locums, and at the same time there has been an increase in doctors.

In conclusion, I also hope I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friends about staffing levels, particularly in specialised areas, because the situation is slightly more encouraging than they may have feared. For example, if we take the current year and general surgery—

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to reduce NHS hospital indebtedness.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to reduce NHS hospital indebtedness.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The national health service is forecasting a surplus for 2011-12, but the previous Government left a legacy of up to six hospital trusts whose private finance initiative payments are a risk to their financial sustainability and up to 24 trusts with such high levels of debt, following years of bail-outs, that they might not meet tests of their future financial sustainability. We are working with all of those to identify their individual needs so that we can help trusts to achieve consistent standards of quality and financial sustainability, and I will make an announcement on that later this year.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to root out poor performance, by which I mean not only that we should deal with waste, inefficiencies and poor value for money in the NHS, but that we must identify where standards and quality of care are being met. Both are equally important, and one depends on the other. He will know from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust how important it is to sustain finances and quality through foundation trust status. We are seeking to ensure that many NHS trusts reach foundation trust status, something that the previous Government failed to achieve and we aim to achieve.

[George Eustice]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the indebtedness of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, and that Cornwall as a whole has suffered a disadvantage for many years as a result of the previous Government’s funding formula, having actually received less than the Department’s target budget for many years. Does he agree that such factors should be taken into account when deciding how to reschedule the debts of such trusts?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know, from our conversations and from my visit to Cornwall and the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, the steps that we are taking alongside other NHS trusts to bring them up to high standards of care and financial sustainability. In that regard, the 3.1% increase in revenue allocations for the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly primary care trust between last year and this year will help Cornwall as a whole towards greater financial sustainability.