Draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Goodwill

Thursday 28th February 2019 General Committees

[Steve Brine]

Yes, you may.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The Minister has not referred specifically to kava kava, a foodstuff that can have similar effects to alcohol and that was banned by the United Kingdom in 2003 because of the effects it can have on the liver. Under EU regulations, we could not ban the transit of kava kava. Once we have left the EU can we actually ban its transit? Many people are worried that these goods can be bought online and the transit of kava kava may be intercepted as it passes through the UK.

[Steve Brine]

I cannot say that I am familiar with kava kava, but because we are closely aligning in this area, everything that we have agreed to thus far would be transferred. After exit day, as I said, nothing new would be transferred, but it would then be for the body I mentioned that is being set up and members appointed to it, through accountability to me, to the Secretary of State and to this sovereign Parliament, to make any changes that it deemed were appropriate. I have a funny feeling that my right hon. Friend might return to this subject after exit day, and he would be entitled to do that. I dare say it would be one of the benefits of taking back control.

As the statutory instrument proposes no significant changes to the current regulatory regime, we estimate that there will be no significant impact on the public sector. Regarding the impact on industry, we have consulted with industry and other interested groups through our public consultation, which ran in December. Our analysis of the consultation showed that overall respondents were supportive of the proposals, but more detail was sought on how they might work in practice. We published our consultation response on Monday 25 February. We are confident that the guidance, which my Department is due to publish shortly, will provide all the additional details that respondents requested. I will ensure that, after publication, it is copied to members of the Committee, who I am sure will retain an interest in this matter after we leave Committee Room 9 today. Respondents should be reassured that our guidance is currently being tested with stakeholders to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and exposes industry and other affected parties to minimal procedural changes.

The British public and food manufacturers will not lose out in any way from the amendments contained in this statutory instrument as a result of Britain leaving the European Union. I believe it is important to stress again that the amendments will provide continuity for businesses and ensure that the exceptional standards of safety and quality for nutrition regulation already in place will continue long after our exit from the EU. I have said time and again publicly and before the Select Committee, and I will repeat again now, that there is nothing about us leaving the European Union that in our view will degrade our capability or responsibility to the British public in this area. I am not sure I can be clearer about that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Road Traffic

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Goodwill

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for raising several questions, some of which we covered in Committee last week. He asked why we did not re-consult on the level. Although we decided that 50 micrograms was not the correct limit at the end of March 2014, we had to consult informally with a range of medical experts to ensure we got the number right, and that took time. Most importantly, we are confident that 250 micrograms is correct, as it successfully balances the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes against its abuse by those who represent a risk on the road as a result of its use. Given our extensive discussions with medical stakeholders, we think that we have had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of all relevant parties and that conducting a third formal consultation on the limit for amphetamine use is no longer appropriate or necessary. No additional significant risk is associated with going from 50 micrograms to 250 micrograms, as advised by the Secretary of State’s advisory panel.

Importantly, the level we have set for the eight illegal drugs effectively represents a zero-tolerance approach. We have set the level sufficiently high so that there can be no opportunity for loophole lawyers to get people off or for people to use the defence that they were accidentally exposed to drugs by, for example, sitting next to somebody who was smoking cannabis or handling an item that had been used for cocaine.

It is important to remind the House that existing legislation on impairment remains on the statute book, and many prescribed drugs will carry a warning indicating that people should not take them if they feel drowsy or their vision is blurred. That has not changed, so people taking prescription drugs below the levels set in the regulations will still be committing an offence if they are impaired. If they take levels above those set in the regulations, but are not impaired, they will have the medical defence. The advice has gone out to pharmacists, doctors and patients that if necessary they should carry evidence of their prescription as a medical defence.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I want to make a point about notices on prescription drugs. Many years ago, the message that cigarettes were harmful to health would have been smaller and much less obvious than it became. That seems to apply now to prescription drugs. Does the Minister have a view on whether the message about the danger of taking prescription drugs, even below the levels he has mentioned, should be much more obvious to users?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have issued specific advice to pharmacists on the nine drugs we are specifying, but there is a general warning to patients as well that taking prescription drugs can affect them. In the case of the drugs specified in the regulations, we have issued stickers to pharmacists and doctors to provide an additional reminder.

On the cost of screening, it is true that although a breathalyser now costs about 17p to administer at the roadside—we now have breathalysers that are evidential—the cost of these new roadside tests will be about £20. Of course, we want more competition in the market in terms of the number of devices available and the number of drugs that can be detected. As we get more competition and more players in the market, the cost will come down. I am sure that police forces and police and crime commissioners will take decisions based on where this equipment is deployed. Even if it is not in every police car, it will be important, particularly for fatal or near-fatal accidents, that the equipment is available, to ensure that a screening test can be quickly taken. Of course, if the two drugs that we can currently test for are not detected, there will be the option of going to the police station to take the test there. The blood test, not the roadside test, will form the basis of the prosecution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said that this is a further step made by the Government towards improving road safety. Personally, I am pleased that we have now reached, I hope, the end of the road on this; I personally insisted that the issue should be put in the Conservative manifesto at the last general election. With a couple of weeks to go, we have finally got the matter completed and on to the statute book.

Drink-drive limits were mentioned. I shall not be tempted to speak at great length on that issue because it is not within the terms of today’s debate, but it will be interesting to take account of the experience in Scotland. It is important to note that when the drink-driving legislation came in, many people thought that drink-driving was acceptable, but we subsequently saw a great cultural change take place on this issue. If we read about the horrendous accidents that occur because of drink-driving, we often find that the driver was three or even four times above the existing limit. As I say, it will be interesting to see how things develop in Scotland. We will, of course, keep everything under review. I conclude my comments there.

Question put and agreed to.