The Office for Product Safety and Standards allocated £500k in 2018/19 for local authority trading standards to fund the testing of products that were manufactured or imported into their local authority area.

Test reports are currently being collated and the data analysed to establish the total numbers of samples tested, the product safety legislation that has been tested to and the level of non-compliance. The results of this analysis are expected in the summer and will be published in due course.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards allocated £500k in 2018/19 for local authority trading standards to fund the testing of products that were manufactured or imported into their local authority area.

Test reports are currently being collated and the data analysed to establish the total numbers of samples tested, the product safety legislation that has been tested to and the level of non-compliance. The results of this analysis are expected in the summer and will be published in due course.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards has made available £500,000 in 2018 and £600,000 in 2019 for Local Authority Trading Standards to carry out product compliance testing at accredited laboratories. This testing includes compliance testing under the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988.

Local Authority Trading Standards take appropriate enforcement action as required in light of the results from this testing.

The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 are being reviewed to ensure they reflect changed fire safety risks, innovation, manufacturing processes and environmental and health concerns of chemical flame retardants whilst maintaining product safety protections.

The Department welcomes any innovative approaches that deliver consumer safety and comply with existing fire safety regulations, including methods which do not use flame retardants.

The Department will publish its response to the 2016 consultation on the regulations in due course. This will take account of the responses received, the views of experts from across government including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Public Health England, the Food Standards Agency and the Fire Services, as well as a range of evidence from external sources such as academic papers.

Data submitted to the Food Standards Agency for local authority activity in 2016-17 indicates that there were 13 authorities responsible for food standards that reported no sampling activity for food standards. However, all 13 of these were unitary authorities, with responsibility for safety and standards, and reported sampling activity in relation to food safety.

The Food Standards Agency has written to 14 local authorities, either to the Chief Executive or the Head of Service, since January 2018 in relation to concerns about compliance with legal obligations. Of these, one was in relation to food standards, eight were in relation to food safety and five related to both food safety and food standards.

Food Standards Agency officials contacted all 14 district councils that reported no food safety sampling in 2016/17 to investigate why no sampling had been carried out. As a result, nine of the 14 councils carried out sampling in 2017/18. Further follow up work will be carried out with the remaining five councils. Analysis of the 2016-17 local authority monitoring data indicates that all of the London boroughs reported sampling for food safety.

The Food Standards Agency’s Board proposed in December 2017 that investigating official laboratories in a systematic review was an important priority. The first phase of the review will address the availability of services to Government departments to ensure official controls can be carried out effectively. A report of this review is expected by March 2019.

In response to the recommendations of the Elliott Review, the following actions that have been undertaken to address the integrity and assurance of the food supply networks include:

- Creation of a United Kingdom Virtual Food Authenticity Network to bring together centres of scientific expertise on food standards; and

- Supporting sharing analytical best practice on food standards across laboratories via a new coordinated knowledge transfer programme to upskill laboratories in the application of analytical methods and support food law enforcement; and supporting the Mastership in Chemical Analysis (MChemA).

The Government response to the Elliott review of the integrity and assurance of food supply networks was published in September 2014. A copy is attached. This document provides the details of the Government’s actions and commitments to address the recommendations of the Elliott Review and was open to the public for further enquiries and comments.

A table showing the number of food samples each local authority submitted to a Public Analyst laboratory in 2016/17, as reported to the Food Standards Agency on the United Kingdom Food Surveillance System, is attached due to the size of the data. Of the 13,362 reported, 2,857 (21%) were part of a nationally coordinated sampling programme with the remaining 10,505 (79%) being part of local programmes.

In the United Kingdom, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the body responsible for animal health and welfare rules. The Food Standards Agency is the responsible body for food and feed law. Both Government bodies are responsible for ensuring the staff carrying out official controls have access to adequate laboratory capacity.

The Food Standards Agency does not routinely capture information on the number of competent authorities that have consulted a public analyst and/or a food examiner when preparing their food sampling policies and programmes. However, the Agency requires local authorities to have a food sampling policy and linked sampling programme and that these should be prepared in consultation with the food examiner and/or the public analyst. This consultation may take place on a local or regional basis.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) triage testing is performed in the screening programme on specimens collected from women attending for cervical screening which show borderline or low grade abnormalities. If this test identifies a high-risk HPV infection then the woman will be referred to colposcopy. No further HPV testing is conducted in colposcopy on these specimens to identity the specific HPV types. It is not the role of colposcopy to test HPV infections.

However, Public Health England does carry out surveillance which has demonstrated a reduction in the HPV types included in the vaccines since the introduction of the national vaccination programme.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is performed on specimens collected from some women attending for cervical screening as part of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (women with borderline or low grade abnormalities, and women in areas piloting HPV primary testing). This test identifies if a high-risk HPV infection is present, but does not identify all the specific HPV types which are present.

Public Health England has also been monitoring the prevalence of type-specific genital HPV infections through surveys that use specimens from 16-24-year-old sexually active women in England who would have been eligible to receive the HPV vaccine. The latest data, including specimens collected to the end of 2016, has shown a clear reduction in the two high-risk HPV types included in the vaccine and in some other closely related HPV types not included in the vaccine among women aged 16-18 years old. Declines were also seen in women aged 19-21 years old. The prevalence of other high-risk HPV types has not changed.

The noble Countess is quite correct. I was talking about people having their driving licence renewed after reaching the age of 70, and as I am sure noble Lords know, it is on a three-year basis and the noble Countess is right to point out that it is a specific declaration made by drivers themselves. But as I have intimated, we are looking into how we can work with health practitioners, particularly GPs, to make self-nomination work more effectively.

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) are set so as to reflect the highest amount of pesticide residue expected in food when a pesticide is used in accordance with its authorisation. This means that a residue level above the relevant MRL does not necessarily indicate an unacceptable risk for consumers.

‘Roundup’ is the trade name of one product among many herbicides which contain the active substance glyphosate. The Government has undertaken 2,046 tests for glyphosate in the last five years. During 2011, 17 samples of lentils and three samples of pulses contained residues above the permitted MRL. An assessment of these findings found no concerns for human health from these residues. The MRL for lentils did not reflect glyphosate use permitted outside the EU. After proper technical assessment, that MRL was subsequently raised to accommodate such use. All the earlier lentil samples contained residues below the new MRL. Results are published online by the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food.

Crops or proteins produced exclusively for animal consumption are not currently subject to EU MRLs. However, crops such as soya that are grown for both human and animal consumption are subject to MRLs set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The current MRLs set for glyphosate are published in Commission Regulation (EU) No 293/2013.

The Government has not conducted any analytical tests for glyphosate on corn (maize) or rape seeds. Commodities tested include bread, flour, oats, wheat, noodles, cereal bars, infant food, beer, soya products, rice, lentils and pulses.

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) are set so as to reflect the highest amount of pesticide residue expected in food when a pesticide is used in accordance with its authorisation. This means that a residue level above the relevant MRL does not necessarily indicate an unacceptable risk for consumers.

‘Roundup’ is the trade name of one product among many herbicides which contain the active substance glyphosate. The Government has undertaken 2,046 tests for glyphosate in the last five years. During 2011, 17 samples of lentils and three samples of pulses contained residues above the permitted MRL. An assessment of these findings found no concerns for human health from these residues. The MRL for lentils did not reflect glyphosate use permitted outside the EU. After proper technical assessment, that MRL was subsequently raised to accommodate such use. All the earlier lentil samples contained residues below the new MRL. Results are published online by the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food.

Crops or proteins produced exclusively for animal consumption are not currently subject to EU MRLs. However, crops such as soya that are grown for both human and animal consumption are subject to MRLs set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The current MRLs set for glyphosate are published in Commission Regulation (EU) No 293/2013.

The Government has not conducted any analytical tests for glyphosate on corn (maize) or rape seeds. Commodities tested include bread, flour, oats, wheat, noodles, cereal bars, infant food, beer, soya products, rice, lentils and pulses.

Maximum permitted levels for aspartame are established in legislation, which also specifies the various foods in which it is permitted. These levels are set so that consumers, including certain sub-populations such as children, are unlikely to exceed the acceptable daily intake of aspartame.

It is the food businesses' responsibility to comply with food law; however, enforcement of food legislation is the responsibility of local authorities. Data held by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for 2012 shows that 175 samples were analysed for aspartame. Only one sample was found to be non-compliant as it was not permitted to contain aspartame. This figure only covers those local authorities who are using the UK Food Surveillance System national database.

The FSA is not aware of any prosecutions regarding aspartame.