HL Deb 21 October 1986 vol 481 cc158-60

2.41 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that primary agricultural products are prone to defects outside the control of the producer, and that problems may arise in identifying the producer, it is reasonable that food processors who have to use these products should be held liable for any damage that such products may indirectly cause.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, this Question concerns the European Communities product liability directive which the Government intend to implement through primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time is available. The basic purpose of the directive is to give protection to consumers throughout the Community against defective products which have been industrially produced.

Both food and industrial processors need to ensure that raw materials of the required quality are supplied. No doubt both will provide in their contractual relationships for any liability not covered by this directive. Member states are not permitted to exclude food processors from liability under the directive.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the somewhat full Answer he has given. But is he aware that the problem has been exacerbated by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which had an effect on the farming land of this country? Is he aware that a side effect is that Singapore is now demanding very low or zero levels of radiation in processed foods exported there? Is he further aware that a consignment of milk chocolate was recently turned back from Singapore by way of example? Is it not wrong that there should be exemption from product liability for primary producers but not for secondary and tertiary producers who have to handle the same basic raw products?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, in answer to the second question of my noble friend, no, we do not believe that the current situation is wrong. With regard to his first point, he will recall that I gave a Written Answer on 6th October. Clearly my noble friend recognises that the directive does not apply to injury or damage arising from nuclear accidents, which are covered by international conventions ratified by other member states.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, even if it were possible to water down the product liability directive, the very act of so doing would reduce the value of the protection which the directive aims to give consumers? Does he further agree that the reputation of the food processing industry in this country is so high that it should be possible for it to obtain the necessary insurance at fairly modest rates?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I accept both points that the noble Lord has made. As I have suggested, we intend to bring primary legislation to Parliament as soon as time is available. It would be best if we were to pursue the detailed differences of opinion during the passage of that Bill.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, in view of the considerable principles involved not only for the consumers of this country but for those abroad and for our export industry, will the noble Lord be good enough to consult his right honourable friend on producing a White Paper in advance of the Bill, which may or may not be introduced fairly soon? A White Paper would give an opportunity for this House, the other place and the country generally, to debate this issue and to be fully informed of the facts.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I should be glad to accede to the request of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. I shall certainly convey his views to my right honourable friend. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that a consultative document was produced in November 1985 following the adoption of the EC directive on 25th July. Four months were allowed for comments. It is upon the basis of the comments in that document that the legislation is currently being drafted.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the processors in the food industry are a great deal more able to bear any liability than the poor primary producer?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I think that is a matter of opinion. I agree that the processing industry probably has more technology instantly available to secure the quality which it will be demanding from the primary producer.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, may I further ask my noble friend whether he will take to heart what has been done in Singapore? Perhaps he was not aware of that situation. Is that not very important with regard to exports? I am sure he will agree that this country is utterly dependent on exporting. If our important export products are stamped on because of the situation which has been created, is this not very bad for the prosperity of this country? Should not my noble friend take this matter more seriously?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry takes our exporting efforts most seriously. We believe in an open trade, non-protectionist policy across the world. We seek to remove artificial barriers to international trade wherever they may be erected, for whatever reason. I assure my noble friend that we take matters of this kind very seriously indeed.