HL Deb 17 March 1977 vol 381 cc202-26

6.21 p.m.

Lord SAINSBURY rose to move, That this House takes note of the Sixty-Second Report of last Session of the European Communities Committee on the Labelling Directive (R/898/76 and R/2384/76). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am honoured to have been asked by my colleagues on Sub-Committee D of your Lordships Select Committee on the European Communities to introduce this report today. Before I do so, I should like to pay tribute to the subcommittee's chairman, my noble friend Lord Raglan. It is thanks to him, and to the sub-committee's specialist adviser, that the report that we are to discuss today is such a model of brevity and lucidity. But I warn your Lordships that the subject is highly technical, inevitably detailed, and almost impossible to enliven with any humourous touches. Before I introduce the report, I should perhaps say a word or two about the Directive's progress.

The draft on which the sub-committee based its report was issued in April last year. Since then, as part of the Community's normal legislative machinery, a Council Working Party, consisting of officials from the Member States, has been examining the Commission's proposals. Although it has not yet completed its work, it issued a progress report in December last year. From this it is clear that many Amendments of detail, and some of considerable importance, have already been proposed. The Working Party's report also identifies the major areas of disagreement that remain and indicates the views held by the various national delegations. I shall mention these points at the appropriate moment in my speech. It would confuse an already complex subject even more if I were to summarise them separately. I understand that it is hoped that the Community will agree a final version before the end of the United Kingdom's presidency in July.

My Lords, we are all of us consumers, and so the Directive with which Sub-Committee D's report is concerned is of direct importance to the whole nation. It deals with the labelling of foodstuffs for sale to the consumer and with certain aspects of their presentation and advertising, and is part of the considerable harmonisation programme that the Community is undertaking in measures of consumer protection as applied to foodstuffs.

In this country we have had food and drugs legislation for over 100 years, and so many of the ideas in the Directive are not new to us at all. In a number of cases we will not need to change our existing practices in any way, and other requirements of the Directive will need only minor modifications. There are, however, some important specific differences between the Commission's proposals and the present United Kingdom legislation, and I will deal with these later in my speech. Before I do so, however, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to some very important sections of the report; namely, paragraphs 6 to 14. These deal in some detail with harmonisation as it affects trade and consumer interests, and with the way it is being put into practice, and I believe that these comments may apply beyond the particular concerns of this report.

The sub-committee met on half a dozen occasions to examine written and oral evidence from a wide variety of organisations representing the interests of manufacturers, retailers and consumers, as well as from the Ministry of Agriculture. As we heard and read this evidence, it became clear that some of the interested parties felt considerable dissatisfaction at the Commission's consultation procedures and believed that insufficient account was being taken of the commercial and practical problems that these proposals raised. There was a feeling that because representations were heard only from European-wide organisations, whose evidence was inevitably the outcome of a compromise among national attitudes, the individual problems and points of view of one individual product sector of the food industry became lost and refined out of existence.

The sub-committee cannot of course comment on whether this dissatisfaction is justified, but the very fact that it was so strongly expressed has led us, in paragraph 6 of the report, to stress the importance of real, rather than formal, consultations. The Council Working Party indeed accepted many, though by no means all, of the detailed points of criticism made by interested parties in its progress report. This, however, by no means invalidates their concern about the early stages of the consultation procedure. Some of the trade associations that gave evidence also argued that the measures proposed were too detailed. The Commission, they felt, should merely have issued a general statement of principles, to be followed up with detailed regulations applying to specific products.

The Ministry's representatives disagreed and were very hopeful that a satisfactory set of regulations would be formulated after the Commission's consultations had been completed. However, they accepted, as does the sub-committee, that a series of derogations or special arrangements would be necessary for some products, since the scope of the Directive is so wide. Once again, I can report that progress in this direction has been made by the Council Working Party.

Other fears expressed by some of the witnesses who appeared before the subcommittee include concern at the cost of the measures proposed in the draft Directive and the problem of their enforceability. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the sub-committee's report mention some of the extra costs that may fall on manufacturers as a result of the Directive's proposals. Members of the sub-committee felt very strongly that extra costs should be avoided whenever possible, and that changes that may be required because of other Community legislation should be put into effect at the same time. The sub-committee heard contradictory evidence about the attitudes and practices in various parts of the Community towards the enforcement of legislation. While the sub-committee is not able to comment on this, we stress strongly that whatever proposals are finally formulated must be practicable for retailers and manufacturers, and meaningful to the consumer. Nor should they place too heavy a burden on the enforcement authorities.

My Lords, I have dealt at some length with these issues of consultation, drafting, enforcement and cost because they seem to me to raise points of importance about the whole nature of the harmonisation measures. However, I hope that I have not given the impression that the subcommittee has neglected a detailed examination of the proposals in the draft Directive. The opposite, of course, is the case. Though many of the proposals contained in this Directive are similar to the requirements already enforced by our own food labelling regulations, significant details reflect a different approach to some of the issues. Rather than take up a great deal of time in explaining numerous technical points of detail, I might refer your Lordships to Appendix I of the report. In this we have summarised the evidence we received on the most important and contentious proposals, and the conclusions that we reached.

However, I should like to bring to the attention of the House two major requirements laid down in the Directive, neither of which is included in our national food labelling legislation. Article 9 requires that all foods should be marked with a minimum durability date, and lays down that the formula to be used is, "Will keep until", followed by a date. This requirement applies to all foods, irrespective of the time they can be expected to last. At present, only voluntary systems of date-marking are in operation in this country. These usually specify what is known as a "sell by" date; that is, they state the date by which the product should be sold by the retailer. This, it is important to remember, is not the date after which the product becomes inedible: it is the one by which it should be sold to the final consumer, to the housewife. It still need not be eaten immediately, and, indeed, storage instructions are often given on the pack. "Sell by" dates are at present shown on most of the more highly perishable foodstuffs —dairy products and delicatessen, for instance—and on some medium-life foods. Date-marking is operated on an entirely voluntary basis at the moment, and it is accepted that the system is working well. The steering group on food freshness, which was set up by the Food Standards Committee to review this subject, among others, recommended in its interim report, published two years ago, that open date marking should be extended and that legislation based on the "sell by" date should be introduced for certain products.

The sub-committee heard conflicting evidence on this topic and, indeed, had some difficulty in reaching an opinion. We felt that the evidence on the relative merits and demerits of the various systems was not explicit. Representatives of retail interests argued strongly that the present "sell by" rubric gives best service to the customer, while consumer organisations thought that housewives were confused by the term and argued for the "best before" formula, which Canadian experience was said to have proved relatively satisfactory. After much discussion, the committee decided that, if a change is necessary at all, the "best before" formula is preferable to the Commission's proposed "will keep until", which it was felt might mislead the consumer.

The Council Working Party, too, is finding great difficulty over this part of the Directive. It has widened the list of products that are to be entirely exempt, and has altered the information to be given. Most important of all, it now recognises that it is impracticable to try to establish a single system for all foods, and is discussing the possibility of an alternative formula—either a "sell by" date or the date of manufacture, or even, maybe, the date of packing—to be used for short-life products. I understand that the list of such products is also under discussion. In addition, I believe that the Council Working Party has accepted the "best consume by" rubric for most medium-life foods. This is virtually identical with Sub-Committee D's recommendations.

The second new requirement so far as United Kingdom legislation is concerned comes in Article 8, which requires that the drained net weight of solid food sold in a liquid medium be declared. This would apply to such foods as tinned frankfurters, tinned vegetables and tinned fruit. Your Lordships will already have realised some of the problems. In the first two examples, the liquid is discarded before the sausages or vegetables are eaten; in the latter example, the juice is consumed with the fruit. Trade evidence was unanimous that only in foods where the liquid is discarded should the drained net weight have to be declared. Having heard that in Denmark there are apparently no problems in enforcing a requirement similar to that proposed in the Directive, the Committee is not convinced that such a declaration would cause any difficulties. However, we suggest that the draft Directive is too sweeping. A list of exemptions should be provided; or alternatively, the requirement should be included where necessary in vertical Directives relating to individual products. In addition, we recommend that the limit below which net quantities need not be declared should be raised from 5 grams or millilitres to 50. This would then be in line with current regulations in this country. I am relieved that the Working Group's report does at least provide that in exceptional cases the limit may be raised above 5 grams.

My Lords, I am conscious that I have already taken up too much of the time of the House and that I have completely ruined my record for speaking reasonably briefly. None the less, I should now like to leave my role as spokesman for the Sub-Committee and speak for myself for a moment, out of my long experience as a retailer, on just two or three of the very important issues raised by this document. The first of my points concerns Clause 3(b) of Article 2. In the original Directive this stated that the Directive was to apply to all forms of advertising of foodstuffs. This provision is quite unreasonable and I am relieved to see that the Council Working Party's revision now states, slightly unclearly, that it applies to certain aspects only. Advertising is an enormous subject; it is soon, I believe, to be the subject of a separate Directive, and this is the way it should be examined, not on the coat-tails of a measure concerned with labelling. Point of sale advertising—that is, advertising within the shop itself and therefore closest to the consumer as she makes her purchases—is already regulated quite adequately in this country by national legislation.

Your Lordships will not be surprised that I have my own very definite views on date-making, and my doubts about this aspect of the proposal are only partly met by the Council Working Party's modifications I have mentioned. I will make just one point, but a very important one. We must never assume that the housewife has no common sense. The "sell by" date is not so terribly complex. It allows the housewife to have the freshest possible food and so generates confidence in the retailing system. It also helps the retailer to achieve efficient stock control. These are benefits we should not throw away lightly.

The disadvantages of any formula that states or even implies how long the food will keep is that the retailer has no way of knowing—let alone controlling—the way his customer will store the food after it has left his store. Therefore, any formula such as "best before" or "will keep until" must take into account the fact that it may be stored by the housewife under unsuitable conditions. To safeguard themselves and their retailing colleagues, manufacturers will therefore be compelled to stamp a date that is, in effect, far too early. This will inevitably lead to greater wastage and, therefore, higher costs. However, I have no desire to be ungracious, and I welcome the progress made by the Council Working Party in proposing a separate formula for short-life foods. I very much hope that the Ministry's negotiators will bear in mind the importance of establishing as comprehensive a list of such products as possible.

My Lords, there is much more that I could say about this Directive—not least about the rather bizarre comments the European Parliament made on it. However, I must cease. I hope that your Lordships have found helpful this review of the work of Sub-Committee D. I certainly found its meetings stimulating. Yet, as a staunch European, I still wonder whether legislation of such complexity is what the Founding Fathers of Europe really had in mind. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Sixty-Second Report of last session of the European Communities Committee on the Labelling Directive (R/898/76 and R/2384/76).—(Lord Sainsbury.)

6.45 p.m.

Lord REDESDALE

My Lords, we should all be enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for giving us such a truly well-informed and fascinating speech. I think that the rest of us can be quite brief for he covered the subject very fully. The points that I might have raised, I was able to score from my notes as the speech proceeded. He covered them so ably. From these Benches we would agree very much with what the noble Lord has said. I feel that, over-all, we should welcome the proposals in terms of concept; that is, to inform the consumer about the product, about what it contains and when it should be consumed. On that last point we get into the enormously complicated question of "Sell before …" and the various formulae. I myself have suffered at the hands of a time-expired sausage so that I feel that there is still a necessity for some formula. Speaking personally, I think that I would agree that the "Sell before …" formula is the best. This leads me to a point that I want to raise later; and there are a great many points that will have to be discussed more fully before this Directive can be allowed to go through.

Speaking of the Directive itself, I noted —and I had to find out what it meant— that this was a horizontal as opposed to a vertical Directive. The term seemed rather to be something out of a television set than out of a report. However, there is an important similarity; that is, that the "vertical hold" or the "horizontal hold"—and this is a horizontal one —requires more fine tuning before we are there! The picture at the moment is, I feel, rather fuzzy.

The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, mentioned the question of advertising. Reading in the report of the Advertising Association's submissions at that stage, it showed that there would be two sets of definitions to work from. Advertising is a very difficult subject to control in any case; and when you start working to two sets of definitions, then, as with the football pools, the permutations go on into large numbers. Another aspect that I feel the noble Lord raised so well was the question of consultation, which came up in the Select Committee's report. It seemed that the Commission had been a little arbitrary in the way it listened to the submissions and was a little one-sided. We all have the consumers' interests primarily at heart, but, in the end, the consumers' interests can be negatived if the requirements laid down become so expensive to implement that the cost is then passed on to the consumer. I think that we have to look at this question fairly objectively; otherwise, in trying to protect the consumer, we may be pricing some foods almost out of the market.

My Lords, I was somewhat facetious on the question of the horizontal Directive; but the point is quite an important one. The report is so horizontal and covers so many different products that it is hard to apply over-all rules to all of the products. It is quite ridiculous. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made very ably the point that we cannot have a single system. It seems to be somewhat impracticable, and therefore it comes back to this point of further fine tuning.

A point which came out of the Directive which worried me when reading through Articles No. 9, 10 and 11, was that they are all concerned with the implementation and bringing into force of the Directive. They say that it should have been done yesterday. I feel this is extremely dangerous and we have to look at it most carefully. I was glad to see that the then Mr. Thomson (who will be joining us as Lord Thomson next week) said in the sitting of the Assembly on Friday 9th July, at page 253: Finally, the deadline asked for in paragraph 9 is too short in the eyes of the Commission and underestimates the impact that this Directive is going to have". I thought that was extremely sensible, and I hope that this point is taken up.

Finally, my Lords, I want to raise one worry that we have about product liability. This is going to be a major subject; it is going to have a big effect on the law. Before there are put in hand Directives which affect product liability, we must have the benefit of the Law Commission's report. I hope that we will resist any implementation of this Directive until we have gone into it very much more fully and have had the benefit of the Law Commission's report on the subject.

6.52 p.m.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, as a member of the Committee, and at this late hour, I will be brief because I am attending a dinner tonight at which I am supposed to speak and your Lordships will also want your dinner. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has covered the subject extraordinarily well. I should like to say how much I appreciated working with him on the Committee. What a splendid asset it is for us to have one of the great merchants of this country on the Committee and applying his expertise in these matters. I nearly always agree with him, except that he has an unfortunate tendency to regard the consumer as more important than the farmer. On that we frequently disagree. I approached this part of the Committee's work knowing that I had no knowledge at all about labelling, except that I have a certain expertise in the matter of certain noble labels which carry the poetic names of Glenfiddich, Glendronach, Black and White, and Whyte and Mackay's. I could go on, but I see that noble Lords are with me in this piece of expertise.

In the matter of labelling, I at first thought that what the Commission should have done was to lay down certain minimum standards. It quickly became apparent to me that this was impossible because one could not ask certain countries, if one wanted to make trade flow freely between them, to modify their standards as against countries like ourselves who are in the lead in our standards of labelling and protection of the public. So that one had to accept that the complication and fine tuning about which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, spoke, was necessary if we were going to fulfil the obligation of the Commission to make it possible for trade to flow freely in the European Community.

I should like to stress only one practical point of our report to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said about paragraph 6. I should like the Minister to take particular note of paragraph 6. During our examination of the expert witnesses, the men who represented great industries and were determined to protect the name of their product and do the best they could to raise the standards, it was constantly revealed that they got on enormously well with our own Ministry of Food, they were co-operative and understood the practical difficulties. They regarded the Ministry of Food as a heaven compared to the hell of Brussels, where they felt that co-operation had advanced in no way towards our system in this country. I think that the noble Lord who is to reply might well look into this because the witnesses felt very aggrieved. These were men of great expertise, they were prepared to co-operate but found that they were completely ignored.

In all these matters, the practical aspect to consider is how well the system works. Our own system is working extremely well. Something we could teach the Community on this point is how to conduct expert investigation into the practical problems of labelling. That means a tremendous amount to the consumer. As has been said already, labelling which is impracticable raises the cost of food. That is the only point that I should like to underline in the noble Lord's excellent speech on the work of the Committee.

6.56 p.m.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee D, I should like to add to the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who has covered the matter so well that there is not very much for us to add. I should like to thank him very much indeed for his help and for the speech that he has made today. I first came across the problems of labelling when I was the chairman of the first Consumer Council. That was a long time ago, in 1960 or 1961. We received a number of complaints from consumers that what they thought they were buying —and which appeared to be correct on the label—was not what the food or drink turned out to be. Not all these complaints were justified—a great many were not. But I was at once made very conscious of the openings for misleading the consumers. Today it is different. Accurate labelling is on the whole—in this country, anyway—practised assiduously. However, the European Community are concerned and have put forward proposals which we in Sub-Committee D have studied and on which we have reported.

Obviously, the sivation today is quite different from my early experiences before we joined the EEC. Labelling in those days was concerned with the United Kingdom. Labelling today must be understood throughout the whole community and some of the criteria are the same. Labelling must not mislead the buyer; the ingredients must be on the label; labels must not cause confusion by having too much information on them or information which is not sufficiently clearly put. The language should be understood on both sides of the Channel

The Commission is anxious to harmonise the labelling programme throughout the EEC, and this will be difficult. But I think that, on the whole, we were not opposed to the principle. I should like to stress, too, the evidence we received from many organisations which confirmed that they were not happy with their interviews in Brussels. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that they thought it was hell in Brussels. I cannot remember anybody actually using that word, but I daresay that that was the impression. There is no doubt that they are happier dealing with our Ministry of Agriculture than they are when dealing with the EEC.

In the evidence that we received from organisations, we were critical of an attempt to do too much in labelling operations. It is possible to put too much information on a label. The print might be too small to be read easily. The EEC should consider cutting down rather than extending the amount of information which is put on labels. The Ministry were not so critical about that, provided there could be some harmonisation between the countries on the point.

The question of costs for labelling was raised. I can remember that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, during one discussion, pointed out that if the machinery for labelling had to be changed, for example, for cans or bottles, it would be enormously expensive for the producers of those items and therefore we should not immediately accept the need to change unless we were absolutely certain that it would be very much clearer for the buyer. I came to the conclusion that it was not at all easy to strike a nice balance between the information given on labels for the consumer and the difficulties involved for the manufacturer. There are problems, which we have outlined in paragraph 18, showing the difference between what we do in the United Kingdom and what is asked for by the Commission. As, on the whole, our system works quite successfully, one is reluctant to embark on a new and complicated system or series of systems, which would cost a good deal to implement.

In a detailed examination of new requirements, there are one or two points which stand out in my mind as a result of our discussions. In Article 5.2 the EEC say that no trade name or brand name shall be used without an explanation. For example, "Oxo" for us needs no explanation; neither does "Bovril", nor "Heinz", nor "Bird's Eye" products. These are all well-known to us and the housewife in this country knows exactly what she is buying when she is buying those things. But it seems those brand names are not to be allowed unless they are explained on the labels. I cannot help feeling that is not really necessary, since I am quite sure that these products are as well-known all over Europe as they are in this country.

Article 8.4 refers to "drained weight" and has been dealt with very conclusively by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I agree with him that this is a very complicated matter, but I think we should try to get it explained and dealt with more simply than we are asked to do in the Directive. Article 9, which refers to the date by which a food should be consumed, is also rather controversial. It is not easy to decide on a date mark, but we felt that the Canadian system was on the whole the best, the formula being "best before", rather than the Commission's proposed "will keep until". I do not have very strong views about it, but I was convinced when we were discussing the matter in the Committee.

There is a further complication on date marking, which refers to long-life food, including milk. Only this morning I had a memorandum from the Food Manufacturers' Association, in which they put some very pertinent points about labelling. Their argument is that if date marking is made compulsory for all products, then durability and not date of manufacture is appropriate for long-life foods. Those points are very technical ones, but in our negotiation with the Brussels people I think we should bring them forward.

The question of the best labelling system which would be acceptable to all the countries of the EEC is difficult to settle. Variations in products, in ingredients and in claims that one product is better than another, all complicate the issue. But I would recommend to the Government the findings of Sub-Committee D. We certainly took a great deal of evidence, and with two experts there, the noble Lords, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Mottistone, we were well-informed. I hope very much that this report will be read by the Commission and will be of help in this complicated matter.

7.4 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, perhaps I should begin by reminding your Lordships that I have an interest in this matter, in that I am the Director of the Cake and Biscuit Alliance, which is a trade association connected with the food industry. I also have the great honour to be a member of Sub-Committee D and to work with my colleagues, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who has covered this ground so very well and so very fully. I feel slightly like a tail-end batsman, and perhaps your Lordships may be likened to a crowd of Australian fielders who would like to "get me out quick". However, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to stay in for an over or two because although I endorse practically everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, and indeed what has been said by my other colleagues, there are one or two points I should like to put forward for consideration.

The first point is that, as well as the labelling Directive having itself been altered since we took this evidence and since the report was written, in some respects in fairly important ways—in fact the conclusion of those alterations has not been reached, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—it is a fact that the policy of the Commission towards Directives seems to be shifting. We were told at the turn of the year that they were moving away from vertical Directives altogether and concentrating on horizontal ones. My noble friend Lord Redesdale is thinking of his television sets. I am not going to follow him on that, but the fact of the matter is that the policy, as set out in paragraph I of our report, has been substantially modified. We may well not find vertical Directives following on to back up the horizontal ones. In turn, that could make a difference to what should be put into horizontal Directives. Indeed, I heard only yesterday that the Commission are perhaps going even a step further and moving away from Directives altogether—or from harmonisation—as being too doctrinaire, and that they are moving towards "economic covergence".

It seems that "convergence" is the new favoured Community word. Perhaps that is a little in advance of its time, but the trouble with it all is that we are trying to debate this, and indeed our representatives and the Government representatives are trying to discuss this issue against a rather shifting background, and it is very difficult to know what are the important points to stand on. I should have thought the first thing to do would be to examine what is the real objective we are trying to achieve. That seems to be set out best in the third sentence of paragraph 3 of the report, and perhaps I might repeat it to your Lordships: The Committee support the Commission's aims of harmonising national measures in this area to the extent that these eliminate non-tariff barriers and promote the liberalisation of intra-Community trade in foodstuffs. That is surely what the European Common Market is all about, and what we joined the Community for. The problem is that it is difficult to get agreement from all the Nine countries on the details of the Directives and that, when agreement has been reached, the result may all too often be worse for all concerned than it was before. The misgivings expressed in paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Report are very real.

Another aspect, which is also referred to in paragraph 3 of the report, is concerned with the interests of the consumers and, as has been said by many noble Lords, the consumers in the United Kingdom are probably well enough satisfied with our own existing regulations though, as will be seen from the evidence given by the Consumers' Association, there are certain areas in which they would like to refine them in the ways that have been described. I would suggest that perhaps there are two areas in which consumers could reasonably expect more information, that is, date marking, which has been mentioned by many people and ingredient listing. But as with other details in the report, these create their own problems.

I should like, if your Lordships will hear with me, to return to the subject of date marking with a piece of evidence which has been obtained by a French colleague of mine, who works for a sister trade association on an over-all Community basis, and who was sent recently to examine the date marking practices in Austria, where they introduced a very stringent labelling policy some four years ago. He reports that it seems that prior to the passing of their labelling regulations, they did one of these opinion polls and discovered that only 15 per cent. of housewives attached any value at all to date marking. They then went ahead and introduced new legislation on labelling, and when this was about to come into force a tremendous campaign of publicity was mounted, partly by consumer organisations and partly by the Government of Austria, by which it is suggested there was a need to take some action to increase its popularity. That seems to be the kind of thing that happens to Governments from time to time.

The net result of this great campaign was that the 15 per cent. figure was increased to 70 per cent. How genuine that is, how genuine all the demands for these changes are, is highly doubtful, and I am not at all sure whether date marking, and these other alterations to our own regulations, will make as much difference as people might like to think. After all, voluntarily, certain British manufacturers and retailers have introduced "Sell by" over some years, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and it is probably the best of various unsatisfactory alternatives. But as will be seen from the report, there was counter-evidence, and the Commission itself has shifted, so far as the report is concerned, to "minimum durability", as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and as described in Article 9, page xv. But the matter is still being argued out, and alternative methods of date marking are being considered.

To return to the Austrians, they have four different types of marking—I think it is true to say that, if one of the ideas that the Commission is considering at the moment is adopted, we shall certainly have three, if not more—and these four types present the ordinary shopper in Austria with a bewildering range of alternatives, as you can find if you go to Vienna. Indeed, it has also been estimated that this date marking process alone, apart from the other alterations, has made an increase in costs of between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. When asked what they would do if they were starting all over again, the Austrians said that, primarily, they would like one method, and "Sell by" seems to be the best one to indicate that, once a product has been purchased, there is still a period of life in it. That is an experience from which we can learn, and perhaps the Commission, too, would do well to learn from it. The Government may like to take note, as they are still involved in these consultations, of the fact that it may be advisable for the Commission itself to do a study—which it could do quite quickly—on the lines of the one to which I have been referring.

I do not propose, as time is drifting on, to take any more examples, and the one to which I have referred is, admittedly, contentious. But I suggest to your Lordships that the experience from which I have been quoting gives more point to what I was suggesting earlier, which is that the benefits to the consumer of such changes as have been proposed are not nearly as much as might be hoped. It may, therefore, be wise to hesitate before we go further with this piece of legislation, if what we are concerned with is the consumer's interest.

So far as eliminating non-tariff barriers goes, it may be of assistance. But, in this respect, I suggest it is most important that the derogations referred to in Article 4 of the Directive, on page xii, are kept to a minimum. One country's derogation is another country's barrier to trade. But having said that, there are many proposed details in the Directive which are much too stringent for a horizontal Directive which is to apply to a wide range of products. Thus a delicate balance has to be struck between limiting the freedom of countries to opt out of the implementation of the Directive nationally by derogation, and making the detailed instructions in the Directive meaningful, but not punitive.

The latest draft of the Directive did not meet the needs of that balance, but there is hope that if the Government and their representatives are resolute during the next three months of our Presidency of Council, a satisfactory solution may be achieved. The Government certainly do not lack advice on what is required, and if they heed, in particular, that offered in this country by the Food and Drink Industries Council, and in Europe by the Commission des Industries Agricoles et Alimentaires—commonly known as the CIAA for the Brits—they will not go far wrong. It would, indeed, be heartening to be given an assurance by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that this is in mind for the next set of consultations on this subject.

In conclusion, as a keen European, I have been somewhat disillusioned by my experience of the labelling Directive, but I believe that all of us concerned have really been hoping for too much, too quickly. A better perspective was probably given by a wise German, whom I met on a visit to the Commission nearly seven years ago. When asked how long he thought it would be before the Community was truly functioning as planned, he said, "200 years". With that perspective, perhaps the best course of action in regard to this Directive is to pass it, but at this stage to lean very much in the direction proposed in paragraph 7 of the Report.

I thank your Lordships for listening to me and allowing me to bat for so long. I trust that when the debate comes to be considered, the Government will take particular care to ensure that nothing gets through that it is not reasonable and practicable to apply in this country.

7.18 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury for initiating this debate. Of course, my noble friend has unrivalled knowledge and experience of these matters. He is also a member of the Scrutiny Committee and, if I may say so with great respect, I can think of no one better qualified to initiate an important debate of this kind in your Lordships' House. We are also most grateful to the Scrutiny Committee for the work which they have done, and for producing this report. The Committee shoulders a substantial burden and responsibility in scrutinising proposals by the Commission, and reporting to the House on them.

We are very much aware of the value of these Committee reports in drawing the attention of the House to particular issues of importance, and in stimulating discussions on them, such as we have had today in this most interesting debate. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity which we have had to debate this document, which, if adopted, will, as has been said by almost every noble Lord today, have a direct effect on the labelling and advertising of all foods sold in this country. As my noble friend said, we are all of us consumers.

I think it might be helpful if I were to start by putting the draft Directive, which we are discussing today, into the general perspective of food laws. All developed countries (including all the EEC member countries) and, indeed, an increasing number of developing countries have systems of food law of varying scope and complexity. Food law may be broadly described as legislation governing the safety, composition, labelling and advertising of foodstuffs. Its purpose is to protect not only the consumer but also the reputable manufacturer and distributor. These laws are framed to ensure that food offered for sale is wholesome; that it is not injurious to health; that it is of an approppriate composition; and that it is labelled and advertised in such a way that the purchaser is not misled and is able to make an informed choice about the food he or she buys.

As these food laws have developed on a national basis and reflect different consumer tastes and dietary patterns it is hardly surprising that they differ to a greater or lesser degree. These differences can and often do constitute non-tariff barriers to intra-Community trade, a point which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his interesting speech. For this reason the Community is working on a food law harmonisation programme, which was revised in 1973, with the object of removing these barriers. This programme embraces both horizontal Directives, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, dealing with a particular aspect of foodstuffs in general, such as the labelling Directive, or with food additives and vertical Directives covering the composition and labelling of particular foodstuffs.

We are, of course, in complete agreement with the need to eliminate barriers to trade and to protect the consumer. The traditional United Kingdom approach has, in general, been to concentrate on the "horizontal" aspect of control, so as to ensure that all food is safe, wholesome and accurately labelled and only to impose "vertical" regulations where the independent expert committee which advises on these matters have recommended such action. This offers the maximum advantage to both manufacturers and consumers.

The draft Directive on Food Labelling which we are discussing today fits in well with this philosophy on food harmonisation. It is a "horizontal" Directive, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said, and we are therefore giving it a high degree of priority during the United Kingdom presidency. The Community proposals have as their basis the same principles on which our existing labelling law is based; that is, the prevention of fraud and the provision of sufficient information for consumers to be able to make an informed choice between the many foods available in the shops, and indeed to be able to decide whether they wish to buy a particular food at all. Our existing legislation, which is in general highly regarded by both consumers and the food industry, and the proposals which we are now debating, both require the provision of broadly similar information on the label. I think it is important to understand this point and to recognise that though there are some new requirements, to which I shall refer later, no new basic principles are involved. For this reason the proposals put forward by the Community are broadly, and I stress the word "broadly", acceptable to us although we have a number of reservations and doubts about some of the detail which we shall be seeking to resolve as discussions proceed with our partners in the Community, and with the food industry and consumers of this country. I take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with his unrivalled experience, has said about consultation.

I note that the Scrutiny Committee also found the draft broadly acceptable. It was, however, concerned that too much was being attempted at once, without proper regard to practicality and costs. I understand this point of view and agree we must keep it closely in mind. We must consider the proposals in the light of our existing law, our present enforcement effort and the cost of implementing any additional proposals. We see merit in maintaining similar labelling laws throughout the Community but we are naturally concerned to avoid a plethora of legislation. Consumers must be protected but they wish, very naturally, to see increases in costs kept to a minimum. We attach the greatest importance in getting the balance right. Enforcement will continue to be the responsibility of the food and drug authorities. I am confident that they are fully capable, without additional staff, of enforcing any amended labelling law as effectively as they do our present regulations.

Given adequate time for compliance—and I stress there should and will be adequate time—most of the Community proposals should not involve food manufacturers in a great deal of extra cost. We have this very much in mind in the discussions in Brussels. Most of the label changes can be taken up as new stocks are ordered and ample time should be allowed to clear stocks of food through the distributive chain. Extra costs would arise from the introduction of statutory open date marking, for which our consumers have been asking for some time now. This is an important matter which has been referred to by every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate. The principle has been accepted by both the present and previous Governments, following the publication of reports by two independent advisory committees appointed by Ministers to examine the problem. Date marking would therefore have been introduced here some time ago but for the existence of the draft Directive. So most of the extra costs would have been incurred even if this draft Directive did not exist.

Food manufacturers and distributors have increasingly introduced date marking on a voluntary basis, and this we welcome. I recognise that most of these voluntary systems are based on a "Sell by" system, as recommended by the advisory committees and as referred to by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, and that our food industry would like to be able to continue to use "Sell by". However, it must also be recognised that consumer interests, not only nationally but on a Community-wide basis, have said that they do not favour such a system. They are in favour of the system proposed by the Commission in the draft EEC Directive which is based on a "minimum durability" date: that is to say, a date by which the consumer is advised to eat the food if it is to be in the best condition. This system also appears to commend itself to most Member States. These issues are still under active discussion in Brussels, but I take note of everything that has been said on this subject in the debate today.

Then the question of advertising was raised. Advertising is already controlled by our existing food law, so it seems to us appropriate in principle that controls on the advertising of food should be included in this Directive; but we realise that there are strong feelings in some quarters of the food industry—and, indeed, in the advertising industry—and the Department is currently discussing this matter with the various bodies concerned. I have already said that the Community proposals involve some changes in our law. I have dealt with date marking. I will now refer to the more significant of the remaining proposals. The rules governing the listing of ingredients of food are likely to be more closely defined and the number of foods which need not at present list their ingredients will be much reduced.

The draft Directive also requires that, in certain circumstances, water used as an ingredient in the preparation of a food must be listed, as was mentioned today. The so-called "30-year rule", which permits brand names established for over 30 years to be used without any further description being given of the true nature of the food, will be abolished—though the brand name will still be permitted. These are all changes for which our consumers have been asking. The view of the Scrutiny Committee that national derogations from certain requirements may be necessary fits in well with the Government's view. Here again, I am sure it will be possible, after consultation with the industry, to keep the 30-year rule for some products which have a long tradition and which are known nationally and throughout the world, and yet to incorporate some additional information which may be required.

In settling the attitude of the Government towards the detailed provisions of the Community proposals we shall take into account our existing food law and developments in food production and technology since our labelling regulations were made in 1970, together with the increasing pressure from consumers to be properly and adequately informed about the foods on which they spend their money. That is most important. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, perfectly rightly, we take account of what the manufacturers say; but we must also take account of what the consumers say, and I should have thought the manufacturers should take account of what the consumers say as well. After all, they are going to sell their products to the consumers.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think he can be assured that the manufacturers listen to what the consumers say. After all, their livelihood depends upon the consumers; so there is not much problem there. The fact of the matter is that there is sometimes a tendency to listen to people who say they are consumers rather than to representatives of consumers. With the greatest possible respect to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, who has ably represented consumers in her time, it is very important to make the distinction. One would suggest to the Government that the manufacturer probably knows his consumers better than the Government do, or possibly sometimes the organisations which purport to represent them.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord in paying a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, for the great work she has done for the consumers. When I read all the evidence attached to the report, as I did during last weekend, I was very impressed with the evidence submitted by the manufacturers. They made some most useful and important points. I was also impressed with some of the evidence given by the consumers. Various views were expressed which we shall take into account when we formulate these Directives.

We shall also take into account the benefits to by derived by our food manufacturers, who of course wish to export to Europe, from a rationalisation of the different labelling laws of the Member States. Officials have consulted and are continuing to consult over 300 interested parties, including food and drink manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers and enforcement officers. We also have the benefit of the views of the Food Standards Committee. With continued co-operation and frank exchange of information between these interested parties and officials, and the helpful views which have been put forward by the Scrutiny Committee, for which we are extremely grateful, our aim will be to achieve a satisfactory and balanced Directive which will be fair to all parties, to the benefit of our industry and to the consumers on which it depends.

7.34 p.m.

Lord SAINSBURY

My Lords, having taken so long to introduce this report, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for more than a minute. In the first place, I should like to thank you all for your contributions and to thank you most warmly for your over-kind references to myself. I am sure that this debate has been worth while and that notice will be taken of the report of the debate, both in Whitehall and in Brussels.

On Question, Motion agreed to.