§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
1.38 am§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of the Cream (Heat Treatment) Regulations (Scotland) 1983. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping him at this late hour, but, in view of the importance of the issue, I am sure that he will forgive me.
The regulations came into effect on 18 November 1983, two days after they had been theoretically debated in Parliament. I say "theoretically", because they were only one of 11 measures for debate, and in the subsequent Division they were grouped with nine others. The debate hardly touched on the case for heat treatment for milk, cream and other dairy products. The issue that night was the impact of European UHT milk and the earlier action by the Community which prevented United Kingdom opposition to imports.
That lack of serious consideration has characterised the progress of this and other regulations governing the production, distribution and sale of milk, cream and other dairy products.
The earlier Milk (Special Designation) (Scotland) Order 1980 was brought in without taking into account the implications for the small producers of effectively enforcing the heat treatment of all milk in Scotland. The consequences were understood by the local authorities which had to enforce the regulations. Indeed, some of them spoke out at the time. I understand that about 200 small producers in Scotland have gone out of business as a result of the 1980 order. At least when that order was implemented people had reasonable time to react, since it came into effect in mid-1983.
In a letter from the Scotish Office dated 3 November 1980, it was said that the Government had no plans to extend the requirement for heat treatment to include cream, yoghurt or other milk products. Yet, a little over two and a half years later, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Scotland wrote to 11 organisations indicating its intention to introduce heat treatment for cream.
I understand that the representative of those most likely to be affected, the Small Farmers Association, was not among those consulted. Had it been consulted, objections would have been made and perhaps we should have had second thoughts about the order. No objections were made by any of the organisations. That is not surprising since the regulations eliminate the small, independent producer and benefit the larger producer.
The order came into effect without those most closely affected being consulted or even being aware of its existence. The first that producers of cream in my constituency knew of it was when they were contacted by environmental health officers one month after the order had come into effect explaining their obligations and saying that they should cease selling their cream. That is no criticism of the district council, because it had received little prior notice.
In the circumstances, it is interesting to examine the reasons for justifying this secondary legislation. Salmonella poisoning arising from milk has been a small, if persistent, problem for many years. According to 884 written answers, between 1970 and 1983 the number of outbreaks varied between two and 10 and the number of people affected between 21 and 730. In one year—1971 — no outbreaks were attributable to milk. Over the entire period there were 12 deaths.
The dairy industry's record on food poisoning is such that most other food industries envy it. That includes National Health Service kitchens. It is significant that none of the outbreaks can be traced to cream or other dairy products, as all of them have involved milk.
I have seen no evidence to link even the incidents involving milk with small milk producers with fewer than 20 cows. I am informed that one case was attributed to cream, although parliamentary answers suggest that there has been none. The case involved pasteurised or treated cream, so it does not add to the argument.
Equally significant is that it has not been thought necessary to introduce the same rigorous controls on the sale of cream in England or in Wales. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of salmonella poisoning arising from cream, I received a parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State giving reasons for the introduction of the regulations which suggested that there was a proven risk to health.
All this might have been understandable in the real world of politics if there had been tremendous public pressure for regulations to be introduced. However, it seems that the Government have not had one representation to suggest that heat treatment regulations should be introduced to cover cream.
The implications are all too obvious. Choice is effectively destroyed for the consumer as an attractive, quality and varied natural product is replaced by a standardised and homogenised mass-produced material which is related more to shaving foam than to cream. Small businesses will be destroyed along with jobs in local communities in favour of large organisations which already have, or can afford, the expensive equipment that is required to pasteurise cream. Even for the smallest producer, the cheapest equipment available amounts to an investment of about £10,000. That has a bearing on the local economy, including local printing, packaging and distributon, which centres on the small producer. All those enterprises suffer.
My constituent argues convincingly that tourism will suffer. He has a thriving business selling his cream, providing farm teas and showing customers round his private and unsurbsidised farm museum. All that is prejudiced by his inability to sell his cream.
The best protection for the consumer is knowing the man who produces the cream. Locally produced cream for the consumer means that he knows the dairyman and the farmer. He will see the cows and he will be able to judge for himself the public health risks, if any, that he is taking. That cannot be said of the cream coming from the large producers, or of the milk. It is ironic that, on a day when the front page of The Scotsman carries an article about a Scottish farmer who says that he will not drink his own milk because he believes that it is being polluted by dioxide and that he has had independent testimony to that effect from scientists, the combined forces of the farmer and the district council are unable to prevent his milk being uplifted by the Milk Marketing Board for general sale. However, the regulations that we are discussing prevent my constituent from selling his cream to his neighbours.
885 Those who are being asked to cease production are not cowboys. My constituent has consistently won an order of merit for the cleanliness of his milk and for his cream. I understand that my hon. Friend must be concerned with public health, but we appear to have no evidence that the sale of unpasteurised cream constitutes a health risk. If there are zealots in the Department who wish to eliminate salmonella, should they not be applying their minds to banning imported poultry, which is far more of a risk, or preventing people from having holidays in foreign countries? I hasten to add that I do not favour either of those measures, but they would do more to reduce the incidence of salmonella poisoning than attacking those who produce small quantities of cream.
I am conscious, of course, of the problems of bovine leucosis, which I understand can survive the pasteurisation process; yet the testing of herds for it is not compulsory. From a series of parliamentary answers that I obtained on 1 August, I am forced to the conclusion that there have been no representations in support of the regulations.
There have been no replies to the consultation documents sent out by the Department. Indeed, the people affected were not consulted. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that no public health problems exist and that the consequences of the regulations and the costs of compliance are unknown to the Scottish Office. This is a classic example of regulations which destroy jobs, incentives, enterprise, competition and a quality product—things to which all Conservative Members subscribe.
I understand that the regulations are being reviewed. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consider seriously exempting small producers—perhaps allowing them to sell unpasteurised cream from the farm gate—or making a blanket exemption for people who produce less than a given quantity. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to suggest an appropriate amount. It is not unreasonable to review these regulations with a view to change, because the future of small, quality producers is at stake. The regulations have not been given the consideration due to them because of their consequences.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for choosing this topic for an Adjournment debate. I know that he has a long and continuing interest in this subject. It is to his credit that he has raised this topic, which affects a small number of persons who run fairly small enterprises. None the less, it is important that the House should turn its attention to their needs as well as to the greater needs of our constituents.
I certainly subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's argument about the way in which the Government have played safe in introducing buying orders—originally on raw milk and subsequently in the 1980–83 period on cream. The Under-Secretary of the State must accept responsibility for public health. We must err on the side of safety. The Government have got the balance wrong. They have gone over the top and are prejudicing unnecessarily the rights of small producers in view of public health needs.
A small organisation in my constituency produces milk products from unpasteurised milk, specifically Bonchester cheese. I commend that cheese to the Under-Secretary of State. I make special trips to Harrods to buy it—it is about the only product I can afford to buy there—and I am alive to tell the tale. The arguments about cream 886 advanced by the hon. Member for Stirling showed how ridiculous the regulations are. They are even more ridiculous when they apply to the contamination of cheese made from unpasteurised milk. Small producers of unpasteurised cheese milk would suffer if they had to incur the capital costs of the machinery involved in small-scale pasteurisation, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stirling. The figure of £10,000 was mentioned to me, too. The use of such machinery would produce bland cheese, unsuited to market requirements, and the small producers would not be able to receive the premium prices they are able to commend at present. The products would probably not even be mentioned in the marvellous publication "The Taste of Scotland" produced by the tourist board. We must ensure that public health is protected, but we must not legislate bacteria out of existence. We cannot go on producing sterile foods that have no character or flavour.
As the hon. Member for Stirling said, it is a matter of freedom of choice. I subscribe to the view—perhaps I can put it more forcefully than he did — that this requirement runs just about counter to every chapter of the Conservative manifesto in terms of liberties, distinctive ways of life, trade prospering, free enterprise, incentives to small businesses, lifting restrictions on fanners, reducing the burdens on small firms, diversifying regional economies and supporting tourism.
Tourism is important. People have conducted tours of small businesses such as that which produces Bonchester. The concluding paragraphs of the 1983 Conservative manifesto talked about cutting a path through the jungle of modern bureaucracy. The Conservatives claimed, that that was hard going. It is as hard going for the producers of small, high value products such as unpasteurised cheese as it is for cream producers.
The Government should consider the matter carefully when they review the regulations, because, although the number of people affected is not great, the Government can easily put small businesses out of business by playing it safe and going for the easy option and banning production on the basis that there might be future health risks.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) have made an eloquent appeal against the heat treatment provisions of the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 based on the constraints this imposes on small businesses and the limitation of the freedom of choice for the individual.
It was good to hear that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had read the Conservative party manifesto. We hope that he might perhaps be converted by it. He seemed to be convinced by parts of it.
The latter point about the freedom of individuals is one underlying the basic doctrines of our democracy and is one of the tenets, which my hon. Friend and I hold dear. It is, nevertheless, necessary on certain occasions for the good of the individual and for the greater well-being of others to constrain that freedom. I merely draw hon. Members' attention to the laws and regulations that have been passed in this House in recent years and in particular to the provisions that have been 887 introduced to regulate the use of seat belts in cars, and the tightening up of standards in respect of transport and building. The underlying principle in all of these actions has been to improve the standards of services and facilities for the general public. The driving force behind the action on untreated cream is that of protecting public health and I should like to return to this point shortly.
First, however, it may be useful to remind my hon. Friend of the background to the introduction of the regulations under discussion this evening. During 1983, this country was faced with an adverse judgment by the European Court of Justice in respect of the ban on imports of UHT milk. The Government rightly considered, however, that if imports of milk were to be permitted it would be essential to ensure that public health be safeguarded as far as possible. The terms of the court "judgment" confirmed that the United Kingdom could take measures in this field and, following discussions with the Commission and the industry, we established a system of certificates and standards. These are principally embodied in the Import of Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1983, for Scotland. Concomitant with this system it was necessary to establish standards to apply to the production and manufacture of domestic milk products. For this reason the Milk-Based Drink (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 and the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 were promoted. These estalished parameters for domestic trade against which any imports could be measured. Generally speaking, the regulations merely embodied the standards and practices operated by the dairy industry. In view of the legal obligation on the Government to accept imports, it was necessary to promote the regulations as quickly as possible but formal consultations were undertaken with the industry in adddition to many meetings on an informal basis.
While the regulations were being prepared, consideration was given in Scotland to sales of untreated cream. My hon. Friend will be aware that at that time action was being taken in respect of sales of untreated milk in Scotland. This resulted in a ban on the sale of untreated milk on 1 August 1983. As was made clear in the period leading up to the ban and subsequently, action was required in Scotland to require heat treatment of milk in view of the numerous instances of food poisoning resulting from the consumption of untreated milk. In recent years the instances of poisoning had been numerous and over the previous decade some 12 people had died as a direct result of drinking untreated milk. My hon. Friend will no doubt recall the outbreak at Keith when some 200 individuals were affected and the subsequent outbreak on Islay in my constituency affecting some 70 people.
The requirement to pasteurise is in no way intended as a criticism of the management techniques of farmers. Salmonella infection can be transmitted in the best-managed herds and passed through cow's system to the milk. The only reliable means of killing salmonella and rendering the milk safe is by a form of heat treatment. To protect the health of the consumer in Scotland and in particular to minimise the risk to the young and the elderly, a programe of compulsory pasteurisation was introduced. A system of exemptions was also established to enable producers who faced severe economic difficulty and in 888 whose area no alternative supply of heat-treated milk was readily available to continue to sell untreated milk after 1 August 1983.
Seventeen applications for exemption were received, of which 14 were granted. Each exemption lasts for a period of one year and is subject to review. When consideration was given to exemptions this year, 11 were renewed. A continuation of the exemption was granted to many of those only as a result of the introduction of a milk quota system which, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, still places certain difficulties on direct sellers of milk. It is to allow time for the position to be clarified that those producers have been given exemption. Subject to the status of direct sellers being clearer, only four producers will continue to be exempted from the ban after 31 March 1985. All the exemptions are in island areas.
I have outlined in some detail the arrangements which apply in respect of untreated milk in Scotland to show the extent to which we are limiting the sales of untreated milk. The arguments in respect of freedom of choice for the consumer and the effect on small businesses apply equally and it was with this background that we gave serious consideration during the preparation of the regulations to introducing a compulsory ban on the sale of untreated cream in Scotland. The health arguments for requiring heat treatment of cream are no less than those in respect of milk. In fact, cream as a medium is more likely to promote the growth of harmful bacteria. For that reason, when sales of cream were reintroduced after the war there was a major drive by the sellers of cream themselves to pasteurise their product. The code of practice recommended that cream be heat treated to preserve its shelf life and to protect the health of the consumer. The pattern of sales in Scotland has resulted in most cream passing through a few manufacturers and for several years around 99 per cent. of all cream sold has been heat treated. For this reason, actual recorded outbreaks of food poisoning resulting from cream are very few indeed. Logic and the evidence from milk before heat treatment was introduced, however, tell us that if cream was not heat treated outbreaks of salmonella poisoning would occur. Therefore, to improve the quality of milk and milk products on offer to the consumer, we believe that a complete ban on untreated products should be introduced.
On that basis, the consultation document was issued on 18 July 1983 and the letter referred to the proposed ban. I note my hon, Friend's comments about the Small Farmers Association. The Scottish National Farmers Union has a producer-retailer sub-committee which encompasses most of the small producers in Scotland as well as the large ones, but no comments were received on that aspect of the regulations. Since the regulations came into effect we have been made aware of difficulties, due to the ban on the sale of untreated cream, being experienced by only two producers in Scotland, one in my hon. Friend's constituency and the other in the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. In view of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State undertook to re-examine the application of the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 in this regard and the operation of certain other aspects of the regulation which have been drawn to the Department's attention by certain enforcement authorities.
My right hon. and noble Friend is still considering the regulations, and I would not wish to pre-empt the 889 outcome, of his deliberations. Nor, however, would I like to hold out too much hope that a re-examination of the regulations will provide the outcome desired by my hon. Friend. In reviewing the regulations my right hon. and noble Friend has to have regard to the availability of supplies of pasteurised cream and to our policy in respect of public health that exemptions should not be permitted simply for economic reasons.
The success of pasteurisation speaks for itself. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to the ice cream regulations which have required compulsory pasteurisation of that product since 1956. All manufacturers of ice cream must comply with that arrangement. Since pasteurisation was introduced nearly 30 years ago. there have been no recorded outbreaks of disease attributed to the product.
More recently, in August 1983, with the introduction in Scotland of the general requirement that milk be pasteurised, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of cases of salmonellosis following the consumption of raw milk. While raw milk may still be consumed on the farm, pasteurisation is a measure which is outstandingly successful in protecting the public from this source of food poisoning. I think I need neither dwell on this point, nor apologise for our having introduced a measure that benefits the industry by the production of food that can now, without qualification, carry this high standard of safety.
My hon. Friend has drawn to my attention the differences that exist between England, Wales and Scotland. The difference in policy in Scotland results from more recorded incidences of outbreaks of food poisoning and a recognition that there was a degree of public concern not prevalent elsewhere in the United Kingdom which had to be met. It was therefore decided that, in view of the health arguments and the pattern of milk sales in Scotland, it would be feasible to move towards a complete ban.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned in particular the question of the cheese milk used for Bonchester cheese. After the good advertising 890 that the hon. Gentleman has given that product this evening, I may even make a trip to Harrods to purchase some and sample it.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a recommendation that cheese milk should be pasteurised. That recommendation is made by the milk and milk products technical advisory committee in its code of hygienic practice for the manufacture of cheese, published in 1963. That code of practice has been generally implemented by creamery cheese-makers, and compliance with the code of practice has ensured that no recorded outbreak of milk-borne infections have occurred from cheese.
There are no plans at present to involve cheese milk in a compulsory heat treatment scheme such as exists for ordinary milk and for cream, and the hon. Gentleman may tell his constituent so.
The arguments are equally applicable to cream, and a similar move was appropriate. In reviewing the regulations, my right hon. and noble Friend will keep the principle of improving safeguards to protect public health in Scotland to the fore. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the Government have a duty in this area and that we are endeavouring to fulfil our responsibilities towards the public as a whole. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and noble Friend is fully aware of the circumstances of his constituent. I am sure that he is equally aware of the circumstances of the constituent of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. The arguments put forward this evening will be borne very much in mind in reaching a conclusion.
Over many years there have been campaigns in Scotland—indeed, campaigns have been conducted in some national newspapers — to introduce the heat treatment of milk to safeguard public health, and—
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Two o'clock.