Lords Sitting of 5 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Lord Sandhurst—Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the Dean of the University of Hong Kong to attend a conference to mark the 20th anniversary of full-time legal education in Hong Kong. Accordingly, I trust the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Tuesday 12th, Wednesday 13th, Thursday 14th and Monday 18th December.

Reading Glasses: Prices
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the average cost of reading glasses bought through opticians and how this compares with the cost of such glasses made by Readyspecs, Crown, and similar companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the sale of reading glasses is a private transaction. It is up to individual opticians who supply these optical appliances to use their commercial judgment and set their prices accordingly. In doing so they will need to take full account of the prices being charged by companies supplying reading glasses. We do not collect details of comparative costs. We have always urged any person needing reading glasses to look around for the supplier offering the most competitive price before deciding a purchase.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the leading optical companies has, since last April when it became legal, sold nearly 1 million pairs of reading spectacles at prices between £3 and £6 per pair? As the price of lenses is now down to £2 and as the public has to pay 10 or 20 times that when buying glasses, is it not time that the Office of Fair Trading took another hard look—its last one was seven years ago—at the arrangement which seems to me to be to the detriment of the public, which pays far more in this country than in any other country in the world?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the example quoted by my noble friend gives us hope that the price of ready-made spectacles is indeed coming down as an average. However, I am informed
734
that the cost of a lens can vary considerably depending on the requirements of a prescription and the need to grind the lens, or otherwise. The basic price quoted by my noble friend is therefore not necessarily the only price. Any question of a reference to the Office of Fair Trading is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. We have no current plans to ask it to undertake such a study, but I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, when she talks about the extra costs of some lenses, those are the rare cases? Is she also aware that the average cost of a pair of lenses for normal presbyopia, which is what most of us suffer as we get older and which requires simple magnification, is between £2 and £4? Is she further aware that the frame usually costs about £10 or £15 from the wholesaler? However, people are not being charged anything near that figure by opticians for such a pair of spectacles. According to the Minister's department last year, they are being charged an average of about £60 a pair. In other words, there is a 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. mark-up on spectacles. Does not this matter merit being referred once again to the Office of Fair Trading, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said? However else shall we make progress against that rip-off?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that presbyopia is recognised as a common condition affecting the eyes from middle age onwards. Regulations were introduced in April this year as a consequence of an amendment to the Health and Medicines Act which allowed the sale of reading glasses to adults without the need for an optical prescription. I believe that the example quoted by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing suggests that sales of ready-made spectacles are increasing and therefore bringing down the average price.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister explain why she is answering the Question at all? Does not the decision taken last year to end free sight tests throw the whole issue into the free market, with profits and prices replacing questions of health for millions of members of our population? Does not the real question concern the information about the heavy fall in eye examinations with the consequent failure to diagnose and treat eye complaints such as glaucoma? Does the Minister now feel able to give information about that survey?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that the reason I am answering the Question is that it is on the Order Paper. I said at the outset that the Government consider that the sale of reading glasses is a private transaction and that, an element of competition having been introduced, we must allow market forces to operate. That is precisely what we are doing.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if I were to put a question about the comparable prices of washing liquid or garden furniture, some Minister would answer it?
Baroness Hooper: It may well be so, my Lords.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness state whether it is possible to get by computer a simple refraction test in order to indicate the refraction of each eye, which is not linked to the sale of spectacles or to an unsolicited medical test?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that there are methods of eye testing which do not go so far as our requirements for eye examinations but which can be done by machines. At the moment the Government have no plans to regard those as covering the situation completely.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is better to compare like with like, and that one gets what one pays for?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already indicated that the Government are hoping that the competition that is now possible will enable people to shop around and choose the spectacles they want from the wide variety of prices available to them.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether she considers that the General Optical Council serves any useful purpose, especially as it seems to be comprised almost entirely of opticians and has almost no representation of the interests of consumers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the General Optical Council has undertaken to carry out a review of optical services in the light of the Secretary of State's decision not to proceed with the two-tier sight test. It is still unclear what this review will encompass, but we believe that it will cover educating the public on the benefits of eye care, the financial benefits to the customer of eye care, the effects of recent legislative changes on the National Health Service, the legal effects of these changes and preparing the profession for Europe in 1992. I understand that the General Optical Council intends to report to the Secretary of State by next summer and therefore I feel that this review will serve a useful purpose.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree in those circumstances that a review of the opticians' practices by the General Optical Council might be considered a review of poachers undertaken by poachers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, assessment takes place in a number of areas where the description of poachers against poachers could be used, including within the Civil Service.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did I understand the noble Baroness to say that references to the Office of Fair Trading were made by the DTI? Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, is it not the case that Sir Gordon Borrie, the director general, has his own powers to intervene as and when he thinks fit and then recommend to the DTI references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is not that the true state of affairs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I referred to the DTI in the context of the Question put to me as a representative of the Department of Health. Anyone may write to Sir Gordon Borrie and ask him to consider undertaking an investigation of the market activities of a company or group of companies; and, as the noble Lord said, the director general himself can initiate action.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Question and many of the supplementary questions asked by those who support the anti-optician campaign are more in the interests of the commercial advantage of companies such as those mentioned in the original Question than in the interests of consumers and the people, who have trouble with their eyes? Does she also agree that the present situation provides a measure of competition, and that there is no need to press this matter further by going back to the Office of Fair Trading or any such body? Does she consider that there is probably more harm being done to the eyes of people in this country as a result of this campaign than is reasonable?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the different requirements for people's eyes mean that they will need to be satisfied in different ways. In the present situation there is a wide variety of choice available and it is up to the consumer to ensure that he or she gets a good deal.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend take seriously the feeling that the General Optical Council would be respected rather more if it were not made up so obviously of opticians? After 40 years of semi-monopoly, surely the time has come to revise the make-up of that council to include large numbers of consumers who can examine what is needed by the public in this country and such as is enjoyed by members of the public overseas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I note what my noble friend said; but we are straying a little from the Question on the Order Paper.

R&D: Survey Date
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to conduct their next survey of the research and development carried out by British industry.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the next survey of scientific research and development performed by UK industry relates to 1989 and will be carried out during 1990.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that that is the normal full survey which is carried out every four years by the Government? If so, will the Government consider publishing a full, separate report on the findings? What action are the Government proposing to take

737
on government-funded R&D and that undertaken by private industry in view of two factors? The first is that the amount of R&D has been falling steadily for a number of years now. The second is that we are so behind in research and development in comparison with our overseas competitors.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to the House that it will be a fully detailed survey. It will be a benchmark survey covering all enterprises with 200 or more employees. That is one which is carried out every four years. I am not sure where the noble Lord has obtained the figures for the assertion that he has made. But on total expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP, we are in the middle of a group consisting of France, West Germany, Italy, Japan and USA.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are grave doubts about the reliability of the total R&D national figure in particular in relation to the Ministry of Defence? The Select Committee on Science and Technology will shortly be producing a report on R&D and we need to know these figures.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord has made. However, I hope that from information provided by the Committee, and that which I shall be able to give him once I return to my office, the noble Lord will have all the data that he needs.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in view of the number of smaller firms employing less than 200 people that have come into existence over the past four years, does the Minister consider that it might be better for the survey to include firms with about 100 rather than 200 employees?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that would entail a considerably bigger survey. As I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, about 80 per cent. of research in industry is done by about the top 50 companies. A great deal of research is undertaken by the bigger companies, therefore.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Government's survey include investigation into the circumstances which prompted the Minister responsible for industry to advise British companies on 5th November last that, in view of the expense incurred in developing inventions in the United Kingdom, British companies would be well advised to seek the development of inventions elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not aware of the exact words that the noble Lord was paraphrasing. I should like to look at those before I made any further comment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Earl by referring him to the Daily Telegraph of 6th November last.
The Earl of Caithness: I would rather look at the exact words.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that the Minister wishes to look at the exact figures. Since he asked me a question, perhaps I may tell him where I obtained my information. It comes from the Government review of R&D, which also includes a proportion of the research and development undertaken in private industry.
Will the Minister answer my second question? When the findings are published next year, will he make it a separate, full report so that we can see exactly what is happening in British industry?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have good news for the noble Lord. I know that it is a matter of concern to him. For the first time, the 1990 survey will be asked to provide separate information on R&D performed by industry for civil and defence purposes.

Eastern Europe: Economic Assistance
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives they are taking to encourage the European Community and the Western powers to provide economic assistance to Eastern European countries now undergoing change.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Britain plays a leading part in European Community initiatives to help Poland and Hungary with food aid, project assistance, improved trade access, and investment loans. We are active within the Group of 24 donor countries in promoting and co-ordinating international assistance to these countries. We have just announced increased bilateral assistance for Poland and a contribution to an international stabilisation fund to support Polish reforms.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his reply will give great encouragement to those concerned and involved? I thank him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it accepted that there are some East European countries which need aid more than others, and deserve it because of their quicker transition to democracy? Since he has mentioned Poland, does he agree that the case for Poland is perhaps the strongest of all?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Our only commitment so far is to Poland and Hungary, where reforms are about to take place. We have not yet taken a decision on other Eastern European countries. That would be premature until we are sure that they are firmly embarked on economic and political reform.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the help that Her Majesty's Government are now giving to Poland and, to a lesser degree, Hungary.

739
Does he agree that the scale of the problem in Poland is so great as to call for a massive combined effort —he referred to such a possibility —by this country and our partners in the Community? Can he say rather more specifically what is being done to provide that assistance, which will secure the freedom in Eastern Europe which we all desire and help to build a safe and secure economy there?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the last part of that question, the noble Lord has touched on the real issue. That is why we and our partners in the EC, and indeed in the Group of 24 to which I referred in my original Answer, are working towards a number of measures, including the bilateral projects which I mentioned. Perhaps the most important of these is an agreement between Poland and the IMF which may be close. That would unlock considerable flows of funds over a number of years from the World Bank and other international institutions, as will a far reaching re-scheduling in the Paris Club. The UK will play a full and constructive part in these activities.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the other day at the CBI Lech Walesa said that what Poland wanted was not simply money but general help with the transition of industry into a modern state? Furthermore, the East European trade council and the CBI have been working on management training for some while. Institutions already exist for such training but it needs more support from the Government and more encouragement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I read the words to which the noble Lord referred in his question. Indeed the United Kingdom Know-how Fund for Poland is a very good vehicle to encourage Polish industry to make itself attractive for investment. Only last week we doubled the size of that fund from £25 million to £50 million over the next five years. In addition to that, we shall be financing an agricultural project to the tune of £15 million. That is designed to get food into the shops quickly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the general desire to give assistance to Poland in particular is very widespread in this country? Has he any details as to what machinery has been set up to bring this about in a practical way?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have referred to the help that the Government are giving bilaterally and also that which the European Community is giving. For private individuals who may wish to help, especially in the area of food and medicines, a number of charities are involved which I am sure would welcome contributions.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation, will the Minister inform noble Lords how much of the food aid that this country has promised has arrived in Poland by now? Getting through the coming winter, as the noble
740
Lord will be aware, is a very important aspect of the problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously I cannot give a figure of the amount of the food aid that the European Community is giving that has reached its destination yet. I am aware of the problem to which the noble Lord refers. We are concerned about reports of starvation in Poland. I believe that that is caused by recent price rises which are causing hardship and some under-nourishment in the poorer sections of the population. We shall be considering whether the additional deliveries of food being considered by the Community could be targeted on such people. We shall treat the matter with some urgency.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware —
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say how much of the food aid from this country has arrived in Poland?
Noble Lords: Order.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wished to finish his question and ask another, it is reasonable that he should do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked for a specific figure. He asked how much of the 100 million ecu of aid promised by the EC has reached Poland. I must look into the matter and let him know the answer.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our noble friend Lady Cox is at present in a lorry driving medicines and food to Poland and that we should all like to wish her well?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to echo that sentiment from this Bench. I hope that my noble friend will have returned by Monday because she has tabled a Question on the subject.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be in the interests of this country if the teaching of English were more widespread in Eastern Europe? Is he also aware that the BBC World Service is carrying out valiant work in that direction? Can he say whether the Government are satisfied that sufficient resources are available to make sure that English, rather than German, becomes the second language in that area.?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that the teaching of English is an important part of the process. It is also important that English should be the second language, not solely for our benefit but also for that of others. The British Council is carrying out a programe in that area and I know that the BBC World Service is greatly appreciated. I understand that following the recent public expenditure settlement it is well funded to do so.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has the Minister observed that whenever there is an interview with a representative of one of the reformed movements in Eastern Europe the person speaks English most fluently? Does that not make us feel ashamed of our performance in the teaching of languages?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that it should make us ashamed of our teaching of languages because all those people speak English so well. It appears that somebody is teaching English rather well.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, has the Minister noted the pledge from the Federal Republic of Germany of 1 billion dollars of bilateral aid? Is he aware of the remarks made last Sunday by Mr. Walesa that 380 West German firms are involved in joint enterprise compared with 12 from the UK which have shown interest? Does that not indicate the need for a greater enthusiasm from Britain, and will the Government undertake to mount a publicity campaign to wake up British industry to the opportunities available?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that the figure of 1.5 billion dollars pledged by the Federal Republic is in export credit guarantees. That is not the same as a straight donation, which is the case with our Know-how Fund. We are alerting industry in the United Kingdom to the opportunities which will arise as a result of the various programmes, and we shall continue to do so.

Cathedrals: Repair Funding
3.3 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to set up a foundation to help finance the repair of cathedrals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, government money for the maintenance of historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage. In line with a view taken by the Church of England that parish churches should take priority over cathedrals, English Heritage does not currently give repair grants to cathedrals. It would be for the Church, with English Heritage, to put a case to the Government if they considered that this policy should be changed.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that aristophrenic reply. Will the Government consider setting up a fund on the lines of the National Heritage Fund which, within its resources, would make matching grants for money raised by appeals in the private sector? Would not the permanent safeguarding of our cathedrals —the most precious jewels in our heritage crown —not only be worth while in itself but also constitute a fitting commemoration of the coming millenium?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government remain willing to consider any justification for a reordering of priorities within the public resources available. I am well aware of my noble friend's views on the matter, particularly that local churches are better supported by local communities than are cathedrals, which he believes are in isolation. I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the proposals which he made in his supplementary question.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cathedrals are a national treasure and that they have depended too much upon the generosity of the public who visit them? Will the Minister say whether the Government will give full consideration to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment which in 1987 recommended that the major importance of cathedral buildings justifies eligibility for grant from public funds? In view of the present situation will that report now be considered more seriously?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have always responded to the desires of the Church of England, which believed that priorities were better served by the grant aid from English Heritage going to parish churches rather than to cathedrals. That belief was held on the ground that cathedrals were better able to raise money on their own. An example is the recent successful appeal for Ely Cathedral where £4 million was raised within 12 months.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government bear in mind the sordid but practical fact that cathedrals are a major attraction of our tourist industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am always grateful for an intervention from my noble friend. He is right to point out that the cathedrals of England are among the jewels in the crown of our country.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the proposal put forward by my noble friend in his Question were to be accepted there are many local small churches of even greater antiquity and importance to the national interest and they should not be overlooked by the Government in their consideration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that at no point did my noble friend Lord St. John imply that there should be a reduction in the grant already given by English Heritage to the parish churches.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, at a time when a mere handful of cathedrals are attempting to raise £47 million for their repair bills, will the noble Lord agree that the Care of Cathedrals Measure —which was recently discussed by the General Synod and will shortly come before the Ecclesiastical Committee setting up a cathedral fabric commission to include representatives of English Heritage—represents a better position in which the Government can grant aid to the cathedrals which are in need? Will he also ensure

743
that if money is made available it will be against the background that primarily cathedrals are not museums or tourist attractions but places for the worship of Almighty God?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I entirely endorse the last remark made by the right reverend Prelate. I also confirm the important Measure that he drew to your Lordships' attention; namely, the recent developments with regard to the future approach to the preservation of our cathedrals with the involvement of English Heritage. The department and I are grateful for the progress that has been made.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am greatly indebted to him for his constructive and open-minded reply, which promises well for the future?
Lord Tryon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am chairman of the appeal for Salisbury Cathedral, which has already raised £4 million of the £6 million target that we set? Will he accept from me that the most difficult question which I have had to ask as regards this appeal is: why do not the Government help with this? Will he accept that Continental governments almost invariably help? Will he also accept that there is no doubt whatever that some sort of "match-you" scheme such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, would have made the job infinitely easier and certainly would have preserved the cathedral for the next several hundred years?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course I am aware of the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, with the Salisbury Cathedral appeal. However, I must refer him back to my earlier Answer. We have responded to date to the requirements which the Church of England has placed before the department.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can we not enjoy the advantages as well as the disadvantags of that position and get some money from the state?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go any further in answer to the noble Baroness. The department is responding to the request of the Church of England.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. This timely Bill will, I hope, not only remind your Lordships and the public at large about the controls on food safety which are already in place and the steps we are taking to reinforce and enlarge them but also serve to reassure those who have expressed concern about the safety of our food supplies. Incidentally, I am sure your Lordships will welcome the fact that at the same time as strengthening the statute book we shall be reducing its size by repealing no fewer than seven existing Acts.
I am delighted that this Bill is a joint initiative by my present ministry and my old stamping ground, the Department of Health. I need hardly add that it is a great pleasure for me that my noble friend Lady Hooper will be my partner throughout the passage of this Bill. Food safety is a matter on which our departments keep in daily touch because the safety of food production, processing, distribution and sale cannot be separated from the Government's concern to protect public health.
We also keep in close touch with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unlike the legislation it replaces, the Bill will cover Great Britain as a whole, which makes good sense in the run-up to the single European market. Parallel legislation will be made in Northern Ireland by Order in Council.
As your Lordships would expect, we are taking this opportunity to revise our food legislation, thereby ensuring that the Bill both meets today's needs and is sufficiently flexible to keep up with the pace of new developments in technology. To this end the Bill makes considerable use of enabling powers which will allow us to make regulations to cover the details of a broad range of food safety and consumer protection measures. After further consultation with interested parties, the ensuing regulations will be put before Parliament. The powers will also enable us to implement the growing number of European Community obligations in this area.
Throughout the lengthy deliberations which led up to the Bill, we have never lost sight of our prime objective of protecting the interests of consumers. But we have also given due regard to the needs of businesses. We have therefore tried to avoid placing undue burdens upon them. Moreover, when framing the regulations we shall take particular account of the position of small businesses.
I turn now to the detail of the main provisions. I wonder whether it struck your Lordships, as it did me, as droll that the Food Safety Bill's first clause, which starts by defining the meaning of food etc., should begin by including the words "drink" and:
"chewing gum and other products of a like nature and use".
This part of the definition is drawn from the Food Act 1984. However, many of the Bill's provisions will additionally cover water used in food production; "food sources" such as live animals, live

745
poultry or live fish and materials intended to come into contact with food. Clauses 2 and 3 bring in food that might otherwise fall outside the law. I give two examples. Food given as a prize at a fairground will be caught by Clause 2. Clause 3 will entitle enforcement officers to assume that food they find in a restaurant is for sale to the public unless the proprietor can prove otherwise.
Clause 4 specifies the Ministers who have various functions under the Bill, while Clause 5 identifies the enforcement authorities responsible for food law. Clause 6 provides for Ministers to take over the enforcement functions from local authorities in specific cases or particular types of case.
On the surface these provisions look radically different from those in existing food law. However, the intention is to use them to continue broadly the existing split of responsibilities in England and Wales. It is environmental health officers who deal with the law on unfit food and microbiological contamination of food, while trading standards officers handle other contamination, composition and labelling. However, because the division of duties will be set out in an order rather than in the Bill itself, we shall have greater flexibility.
I turn to the main offences in the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 make it an offence to render food injurious to health or supply food that fails to meet food safety requirements; that is, food that has been made injurious to health, is unfit for human consumption or is so contaminated as to be unsuitable for human consumption. The terms "injurious to health" and "unfit for human consumption" are enshrined in current food law and thus have the advantage of established case law. The offence of supplying food so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption is a new offence which constitutes an additional safeguard for consumers. It makes it quite clear that food can now be considered to be unsuitable for human consumption by reason of serious contamination.
Another crucial feature of the revised offences is that they apply to food in possession for sale. EHOs already enforce the provisions on unfit food in the factory, but it obviously makes sense for enforcement officers to check products throughout the production stage, as well as at the point of retail. This is also necessary to meet our obligations under the EC Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive.
Clause 8 also introduces another important aid to enforcement. It contains a presumption that if any part of any batch of food is shown not to comply with food safety requirements, then the whole of that batch does not comply. The onus is placed on the owner to prove that the remainder of the batch is safe for human consumption.
Clause 9 strengthens existing powers for enforcement officers to inspect, detain and seize food and apply to a justice of the peace for an order that the food be condemned. If food is not condemned, then the enforcement authority will have to pay compensation equal to any consequent loss in the value of the food.
Clauses 10 and 11 provide various new or revised powers to ensure that food businesses operate in
746
accordance with any regulations made concerning manufacturing processes or hygiene. Enforcement officers may issue improvement notices requiring any deficiencies to be put right over a time period, which they will specify. What is more, if a breach of regulations has led to a conviction the court may, if necessary to protect health, issue an order prohibiting the use of all or part of the offending premises. In certain circumstances the prohibition order can also apply to the proprietor.
Clause 12 allows premises to be closed immediately if they pose an imminent risk of danger to health. An enforcement officer can impose an emergency prohibition notice which, provided he applies to take the issue to court within three days, remains in force until the court has considered his action. The court can ratify this action by imposing an emergency prohibition order, or can if it disagrees order compensation to be paid to the owner of the premises.
Clause 13 enables Ministers to make emergency control orders. These are not intended as a way of dealing with each and every food scare. However, from time to time there may be serious incidents which present an imminent threat to health and require a rapid, nationally co-ordinated response. We hope to continue to deal with most contamination incidents under existing voluntary arrangements. Indeed, even if the statutory powers were used the measures to be taken would be of the sort that any conscientious person would seek to take voluntarily; for instance, the withdrawal from sale of adulterated wine.
However, statutory powers need to be available, notably to cover those situations where voluntary co-operation is not forthcoming. The emergency powers will stand alongside those available under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which enable us to tackle food contamination which occurs in a specific geographical area. The recent problems over lead in cattle food have demonstrated our ability to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies. The new powers will enhance that ability.
Clauses 14 and 15 set out the offences relating to consumer protection. It will continue to be an offence to sell food which is not of the nature, substance or quality which the purchaser demands. It will continue to be an offence to sell, and will become an offence to possess for sale, food which is falsely described or presented.
Clause 16 gives wide powers to Ministers to regulate in relation to food safety, hygiene and consumer protection. Many of these powers feature in existing legislation, and the body of regulations under our existing powers will continue in force for the present. However, these powers will be clarified and strengthened. We shall be able to control food composition; for example, restricting or prohibiting the use of certain additives. We shall be able to control microbiological standards, food processes and treatments, food hygiene and the commercial import or export of specific foods.
Moreover, as will be apparent if your Lordships turn to Schedule 1, paragraph 5(3), we shall for the

747
first time have powers to regulate the training of those who handle food, and Clause 23 enables local authorities to provide or finance such training. My honourable friend the Member for Kettering, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, is today issuing a consultation paper on this subject. Regulations will also be able to specify labelling requirements. In this connection, your Lordships may wish to note the review of food labelling recently announced by my honourable friend the Member for Penrith and the Border, the food Minister, which is to be carried out by the Food Advisory Committee.
Many of these regulations will also be able to cover food ingredients and food sources, such as live animals. For example, we shall be able to place controls on live animals that have been treated in such a way that there is a risk of veterinary residues occurring in food as a consequence. It will also be possible to regulate in respect of materials intended to come into contact with foods, from cling-film to brewers' vats.
There is also an important provision in the Bill which relates to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community. Clause 17 enables Ministers to make any new regulations which may be necessary to fulfil Community obligations in this area. In most cases we should be able to act using the powers I have already described. However, Clause 17 will make certain that we can respond to any new Community obligations which may emerge at some future time.
Clause 18 will permit regulations to set appropriate controls on novel foods or food sources. Foods as diverse as new exotic fruits and genetically manipulated yeasts would come under the scope of this power. However, we shall certainly not want to use these powers unless this is necessary since both consumers and the industry benefit greatly from product innovation.
Clause 18 allows regulations to ban the import of a specified class of food, subject to exceptions. We see the need to use this power with respect to imports from the Community diminishing as the single market develops; and in particular as the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive brings together the controls applied by all member states. But there are some important arrangements for milk which will need to continue. Clause 18 also allows regulations controlling the sales of milk by prescribing special designations. These featured at length in the 1984 Act and the details will now be transferred to regulations.
Clause 19 will enable Ministers to make regulations to require food premises to be registered or additionally to operate in accordance with a licence. We expect to apply registration to the majority of food businesses, including all of a commercial and permanent nature. They will be required to give basic details of the nature of their operation, enabling enforcement officers to build a clear picture of the food and catering industry in their area and hence to help set enforcement priorities.
748
The purpose of licensing is very different. Let me explain it by reference to food irradiation. Food irradiation under strictly controlled conditions has a very useful role to play in enhancing food safety; for example, it can be used to destroy pests and bacteria in produce such as herbs and spices. The scientific case for its carefully controlled use is overwhelming and it is already used in over 20 countries around the world. However, the process is highly technical and requires special expertise to operate properly. We intend therefore to require that the irradiation of food is only carried out in accordance with the terms of a licence. However, consumer choice is the name of the game, and the crucial condition will be a requirement for full, clear labelling of irradiated food.
Clause 20 enables enforcement authorities to bypass an apparent offender whose offence was the fault of another and prosecute instead the real offender. Clause 21 provides a statutory defence for a defendant who can show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence. The clause also allows defendants to be deemed to have shown due diligence in particular circumstances. The effect of this is to make a due diligence defence easier to establish for those who are buying in food from the manufacturer or importer. These people should be able to rely to some extent on information from the supplier in question, provided of course that they do not introduce contamination themselves.
I hope that your Lordships have found my outline of the Food Safety Bill's main provisions useful. I will discuss the more important aspects of the remaining clauses in rather less detail. Clause 25 enables Ministers by order to require businesses to provide information and to permit the taking of food samples. This will strengthen the Government's food surveillance programme which currently rests upon voluntary arrangements. Clauses 27 to 30 deal with aspects of the administration of enforcement work and the arrangements for obtaining and analysing or examining samples of food, food sources or contact materials.
Clause 32 sets out the powers of entry available to enforcement officers. It sets out an offence of unauthorised disclosure of information obtained when using the powers of entry. Clause 33 also contains an offence, that of intentional obstruction of an enforcement officer. It requires that in some circumstances a person may be obliged to give information to an enforcement officer although no one will be required to incriminate themselves.
Clause 34 lays down the time limits for prosecutions. Clause 35 sets down penalties, some of them at a level very significantly greater than in existing legislation. With the exception of obstruction it will be possible to try all offences in the crown court and the maximum penalties will be two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. If cases are taken in magistrates' courts, the maximum penalties for the main offences will be six months in prison and/or a fine of £20,000. Clauses 37 and 38 lay down the circumstances under which appeals may be made to the magistrates' court or crown court.

749
In Scotland all offences would normally be tried in the sheriff court, but with discretion to refer the most serious offences to a higher court. The penalties for all offences will be the same as in England and Wales.
Codes of recommended practice may be drawn up by Ministers under Clause 39. The codes will guide food authorities in their enforcement work and will be developed in consultation with enforcement interests through an implementation advisory committee. Food authorities will have to take due notice of these codes in carrying out their functions and to comply with any directions issued by Ministers which specify how the codes are to be implemented. The intention is to use guidelines to obtain an even application of the law. The Government have no intention of taking away from local authorities their responsibility to control their own budgets.
The question of resources for local authorities is obviously an important one, and we recognise that the Bill will create additional costs for the local authorities who will need extra staff to carry out their new duties fully and effectively. We estimate that the cost is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–92 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's revenue support grant settlement. This is a very good response by the Government.
Clause 54 allows certain parts of the Bill to bind the Crown with limited exemptions. Your Lordships will be interested to hear that the Houses of Parliament will be caught within the Act as the exemption applies only to national security, to Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in their private capacities. Clause 59 enables Ministers to bring the new legislation into effect on such days as they may choose, apart from a few provisions, notably those related to emergencies, which will have immediate effect. In general, we would hope to have most sections of the legislation, and the main regulations which follow, in place during the 1990–91 Parliamentary Session.
Food and its safety seem to have been the flavour of many months in the media, and certain matters have recently raised special interest. As your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Minister recently announced the establishment within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of a food safety directorate. The 700 or so people who make up the directorate draw together the scientists and administrators dealing with the whole gamut of food safety, standards and consumer protection issues.
My right honourable friend also announced the setting up of a consumer panel to keep under review the working of food policies. It will enable the food Minister to hear directly and regularly from consumer representatives. The new panel complements the existing expert committees and the contacts the Minister has with all the other organisations interested in food safety. It does not in any way replace them.
We firmly believe that we should base our conclusions concerning food safety on the best
750
scientific advice available. We firmly believe that our reasons for actions should be logical and open. Parliament requires this of us. By submitting this Bill to your Lordships, we believe that we are updating and improving our food safety legislation not just for 1990, but for the foreseeable future. The Government attach considerable importance to this Bill. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down may I ask whether she can arrange for an answer to be given at the end of the debate concerning the problem of private parties which hire a room and take in their own food? If the food does not come up to standard, then who is responsible? Is it the owner of the room, or the suppliers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend would be aware that my noble friend Lady Hooper will reply to all questions if delivered at the proper time.

Atomic Weapons Establishment: Future
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement about the Atomic Weapons Establishment which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to made a Statement on the future organisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment,
"In their Fifth Report 1988–89, the Select Committee on Defence drew attention to the problems that they believed risked delay to the progress of the Trident programme. The Government have been considering the best way to address these issues.
"The present position is that we believe we shall achieve the initial production at Aldermaston and the other AWE sites that will enable the Trident in-service date of the mid-1990s to be met. However, the need for increased production from 1992 for later Trident deliveries, against the background of the very keen demand for skilled labour in the Thames Valley area, does pose an increasing challenge, and one for which a greater production management capability is required.
"The Government consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities, and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership. Legislation will be required to implement this and will be introduced in due course. Under this legislation, provision would be made for the present workforce to be employees of one or more operating companies.

751
"In the meantime, and until the necessary legislation is introduced, the Government intend to appoint a management contractor who will concentrate initially on manufacturing work and site support. The contractor will strengthen the establishment by bringing in during 1990 a small number of experienced managers from the private sector. The contractor will be selected by competition and invitations to tender will be issued as soon as possible.
"There will be no change in the purpose or direction of the establishment's programme. The first objective is to reinforce rather than to replace existing AWE management, and all the existing AWE sites will continue in operation.
"The Government remain fully committed to the Trident programme, together with a strong research base to underwrite nuclear weapon capability for the future. Safety will continue to be the highest priority. A compliance office, led by a senior and suitably experienced government official based at AWE, will monitor contract compliance and observance of safety, quality and security arrangements.
"Under the initial arrangements, I have described, AWE personnel will remain civil servants. The workforce at the establishment's sites are being informed today and consultation is being set in hand with the relevant trade unions. A consultative document which sets out in greater detail the background and the proposals I have outlined will be placed in the Library of the House this afternoon.
"These changes will not affect the Aldermaston new building programme, which has been managed satisfactorily since 1988 by a private contractor operating under a government contract. The British nuclear deterrent is committed to NATO in support of the agreed NATO strategy of deterrence based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. The arrangements that I have announced today seek to address the valid concern of the Select Committee about the need for improvements at AWE and to ensure that the Trident programme is successfully implemented. I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. A number of aspects of the Statement concern us. Perhaps I may briefly set them out and then ask a number of questions.
Paragraph 4 of the Statement says:
"The Government consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership".
Paragraph 6 says:
"There will be no change in the purpose or direction of the establishment's programme".
752
The Statement continues:
"Safety will continue to be the highest priority".
The Statement then goes on to say:
"These changes will not affect the Aldermaston new building programme".
Although the Minister indicated that the proposed contractorisation rests upon a reference by the Select Committee on Defence, it is based on a report by Sir Francis Tombs. How long has that report been in the Government's hands, and when do they intend to publish it? Can he give an assurance that major redundancies will not follow these proposals? If he cannot, can we assume that contractorisation is an opportunity for the Government to evade their responsibilities towards the employees at Aldermaston? Is it the case that the Government will entrust commercial management with issues of national security? For example, is it not the case that the secrets of Britain's nuclear bomb designs are held at Aldermaston? How will those secrets be protected? Has the United States been consulted, in view of the fact that some of her secrets are housed at Aldermaston?
Are the Government aware that the staff at Aldermaston, especially those who are members of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which represents about 1,600 Aldermaston scientists and engineers, are strongly opposed to the management of Britain's nuclear deterrent being farmed out?
I heard what the noble Earl said about consultation in the future, but before the announcement today did the Government consult with the employees at Aldermaston? Can he tell the House what they have in mind in respect of security at Aldermaston? How will that be affected by the change? Is it not a fact that security at Aldermaston is presently in the hands of the MOD police, who have among other responsibilities the power of arrest and also the right to carry firearms? What changes do the Government envisage in the security arrangements?
The noble Earl will recall that in two glaring instances —at the Royal small arms factories at Enfield and Waltham Abbey —serious questions were raised when security was transferred to private security firms. He will not need reminding of the serious questions that are being asked about the adequacy of security provided by a private security firm at the Royal Marines depot at Deal. Can the Minister assure the House and especially the people wo live around Aldermaston that these changes will not affect those matters? Is the noble Earl satisfied with the Government's experience of contractorisation at Rosyth in Scotland and also at Devonport?
Finally, does the noble Earl appreciate that selling to the private sector this strategic area of the sensitive matters handled at Aldermaston is a new step in the Government's mania for getting out of their responsibilities to the nation and to the national interest?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, on these Benches we also thank the noble Earl for repeating the tatement made in another place. I have one or two questions.

753
Is it not a paradox that in regard to nuclear defence we are moving in the direction of privatisation, whereas with nuclear power we are moving in the other direction, as we found last night? One of the reasons for this move is the pressure on scarce manpower resources and the cost thereof in the Thames Valley area. Does that not mean that there will be higher costs under the new arrangements? If that is the case, will there be an effect on the defence programme? What will be cut to make way for these higher costs?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the issue of security is extremely worrying. We read in paragraph 7 of the Statement that safety will continue to be the highest priority. That means that security will not be the highest priority. The noble Lord touched on various aspects of that subject and asked questions to which we should all like answers.
The Government are contemplating introducing legislation. In paragraph 5 of the Statement they talk of interim arrangements until the necessary legislation is introduced. Those interim arrangements seem to pre-empt the legislation that may need to go through this House.
Finally, in paragraph 3 we read of the need for increased production from 1992 for later Trident deliveries. Can we be assured that the weaponry will be available for the new Trident boats in time for each one of them when it takes to the water?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about full contractorisation. A further consultative document is likely to be issued in due course outlining our legislative proposals for the proposed method of contractor operation and the implications for the AWE's existing workforce. It is likely that the workforce will be transferred into contractor's employment under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The workforce will be fully consulted at the appropriate time on the implications of the transfer for their conditions of service and in particular for their superannuation rights.
The noble Lord also mentioned the recently compiled report by Sir Francis Tombs. We have paid great attention to the report but it is not the Government's intention to publish it. The noble Lord asked about redundancies. As the Statement made clear, the AWE is short of manpower, so there is no question of general job losses under the management contract. But the possibility of a very small number of redundancies among senior management cannot entirely be ruled out. As regards long-term redundancies after full contractorisation, that depends on demand for the work of the establishment, which would be the determining factor whatever management arrangements were in place at the AWE, whether it was in the private sector or in the public sector.
The noble Lord also referred to the security aspect. Private contractors already have great status in this area. They have been involved in a range of works on AWE sites for many years. What is most important is
754
that a £1 billion programme of capital construction at Aldermaston is already under private sector project management. Dockyard contractors now refit and service nuclear powered submarine reactors.
The noble Lord made an important point when he talked about ensuring security. Safety and security will continue to be paramount and will be safeguarded. All staff will be vetted in exactly the same way as civil servants. The contract will specify strict environmental, health and safety criteria.
Finally, procedures will be in place to ensure careful monitoring. We shall maintain the Ministry of Defence police at AWE and will continue to set security standards for the establishment. They will be monitored by Ministry of Defence staff at AWE and in MoD headquarters.
The noble Lord made a point about nuclear defence and nuclear power. They have nothing to do with each other in this context, which is to improve management efficiency to see the Trident programme complete.
Costs were mentioned. Costs will obviously depend upon the outcome of the competition. It is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise, but we shall clearly be looking to the contractor to manage his resources efficiently.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but he must have misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that it was a cost-cutting exercise. I suggested that it would cost more because the contractors would have to respond to market forces. I was asking the Minister about the increased costs, not the decreased costs.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, having to respond to market forces does not necessarily mean that the operation will cost more. With the natural efficiency of market forces it is to be hoped that it will not cost any more.
As regards the legislation and when it is likely to take place, legislation will be required for full contractorisation. We hope to put a Bill before Parliament in time for the operation to begin in 1992.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he deal with the subject of the contractor and the competitive tender? Is he telling us, as he read out in the Statement, that the contractor will be selected by competition and an invitation to tender? Are we putting out to competitive tender the safeguarding of security of that establishment? What will be the criteria upon which such a tender will be awarded if it is not awarded on the lowest price?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it goes without saying that safety and security will be of paramount importance when the contractor is chosen. It will be made clear that they are of paramount importance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm what I think that he has nearly but not quite said: that the contractors and the staff that

755
they bring in will be subjected to exactly the same degree of security vetting as is the Civil Service staff at present?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right on that point.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one general question and one particular one. On the general question, is the whole operation desirable and is it necessary in present circumstances? Is there not a certain lack of enthusiasm for Trident on the other side of the Atlantic? Are any of the operations intended to step in to see whether the job can be done alone in the event of the United States stepping out? Is that the nature of the problem that the Government face? The particular question I wish to ask relates to trade unions. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the trade unions would be consulted. Is that not a different attitude from the attitude which the Government have taken in relation to GCHQ? If they are going to consult the trade unions in this delicate area perhaps they might reconsider their attitude at GCHQ.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying about GCHQ, but I do not believe that the situation is related to what is proposed. On the question of whether there is a need for the Trident programme, the noble Lord is aware of the joint NATO communiqué of June of this year in which it was agreed that there is no alternative to the alliance deterrence strategy based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. The honourable gentleman the shadow defence spokesman in another place in October of this year said that the next Labour Government would accept the responsibilities, both financial and strategic, of inheriting the Trident programme.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, was not that all before the recent world-shaking events in which Mr. Gorbachev has played so large a part and in which the President of the United States has also participated?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord had better ask his honourable friend.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, when my noble friend told my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that he was quite right, was he saying that each individual workman working for a private contractor will have to give a written undertaking just as civil servants do?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, they will undergo the normal vetting which is standard for civil servants.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on a first hearing of the Statement, I am bound to say, and regret to say, that there is a dangerous element of recklessness about it. Will the Minister be good enough to define the meaning of "contractorisation", a word that I have never heard before? I do not know
756
whether it is in the Oxford Dictionary, but it has never been brought to my attention at any stage. Is it privatisation by another means? The Statement says that the Government:
"consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities, and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership".
Will he be good enough to define what is left? Secondly, on the question of security, which has been raised effectively by other noble Lords, is it possible for those contracts to fall into the hands of foreign firms and contractors? It is important that in the public interest the Minister and his right honourable friend should define this matter carefully.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked about contractorisation and said that he had never heard of the phrase in that context. I must make it clear that we must ensure that scarce manpower resources are managed effectively and that strong production management expertise exists in view of the increased production requirements from 1992. It is the Government's view that that can best be achieved by a full government-owned, contractor-operated management. That requires legislation. In the meantime, as a first step, we are introducing a management contractor who will concentrate initially on manufacturing and supporting activity at AWE sites. The noble Lord also asked whether the operation would be open to foreign firms. The answer is no. We can ensure that through the application of Article 223 of the EC Treaty.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
Second reading debate resumed.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, first of all, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for explaining the Food Safety Bill to us in such detail and with considerable clarity. The Bill has been generally welcomed by those people who are most interested in it and likely to be most affected by it. In particular, those who speak for consumers, for the local authorities, including the enforcement officers of those local authorities, for producers and for retailers, have all expressed general support for the Bill. However, naturally they have reservations on a number of counts in respect of their own specific interests and in respect of specific clauses. This support with reservations —if I may so describe it —promises an interesting Committee stage for the Bill in your Lordships' House.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill was subject to much discussion with interested parties over recent years. Thus it shows signs here and there of compromise. But the important thing, as the Minister said, is that overall the Bill is decisive in a text which is admirably clear.
The need for the Bill is paramount. In spite of our reputation for the quality of our food and its

757
diversity, it would be very difficult not to be concerned about food safety in recent months and years, not only in respect of new products but also of basic foods. The Department of Health has already reported that in the first nine months of 1989, 21,843 cases of food poisoning have been recorded. That was an increase of 13 per cent. over the same period in 1988.
I have already mentioned what I believe to be the clarity of the Bill. Perhaps I may express the hope that the same thing will apply to the important codes of practice which are to be made under it. It is particularly gratifying that the role of environmental health officers and trading standards officers under the Bill has been recognised and will be extended, and that the Government have agreed to fund an additional £30 million for this purpose. That is good so far as it goes. Naturally the only query regarding the figure is whether it will be enough for the many new duties which the Bill imposes on environmental health officers and trading standards officers.
There are considerable recruitment problems, particularly of environmental health officers. There are also training and placement problems, certainly in areas where high housing costs are making staff recruitment well nigh impossible. This naturally leads me to ask the Minister and indeed the Department of Health, which is vitally concerned in this as well, whether they will impress upon the Department of the Environment the vital nature of the extended role which the Bill now places on environmental health officers. I would ask also whether local authorities operating under the supervision of the Department of the Environment will ensure an adequate budget for the enforcement work which the Bill envisages for this important service. Mention of the budget causes me to ask whether or not the way in which local authorities discharge their duties under the Bill will in any sense or way be monitored. If so, how?
The noble Baroness mentioned that Scotland is included in the Bill and gave the reasons for this. She also mentioned that Northern Ireland is in it, together with England and Wales. My query is whether or not in the extended discussions leading to the drafting of the Bill, organisations which were purely Scottish were consulted in the same way as their counterparts here in England. I wonder also whether in the Scottish Office the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Department of Health were fully taken into account in relation to the Bill, and whether they are totally in agreement with it.
The scope of the Bill has caused many organisations to indicate their support for it. In particular, the extended provisions for the supervision of food processing have been generally welcomed. I am informed that the main body in this area —the Food and Drink Federation —accepts the provisions of the Bill. That useful organisation speaks mainly for large firms which are already well equipped to deal with the responsibilities which the Bill will place upon them.
There are however queries about certain smaller companies in food processing, especially in new high tech areas, as to whether or not they have the necessary experience and resources to comply with
758
the Bill. Also, in view of that, perhaps some assistance will need to be given to them, particularly in the early stages.
Farmers, I am glad to say, tell me that they also accept the need for the Bill and its scope, although being farmers, they have queries about aspects of the application of the Bill to them. The queries are, in particular, whether enforcement officers will have knowledge of modern farming practice in sufficient measure to understand what the farmer is attempting, and why his compliance with the Bill may be more difficult because he is a farmer than would be the case in other areas.
Nevertheless, I personally welcome the responsibilities which the Bill places on farmers to ensure observance, including the codes and in particular to ensure that the inputs of farmers are safe and that their primary produce is also, so far as humanly possible, a safe product.
The Bill is greatly concerned with the doctrine of due diligence. This is enshrined of course in its totality in Clause 21. I understand that retailers generally regret the repeal of Section 102 of the Food Act 1984 and the defence of warranty which is included in that section. Clause 21 attempts a fair balance between the parties. There is no doubt that further discussion will take place upon it at the Committee stage. I only say here that consumers must have protection without wearisome and costly litigation. That, it seems to me, is what Clause 21 seeks to do.
In connection with prohibition orders, one notes that Clause 11 imposes fairly strenuous and far-reaching powers on the courts with very limited discretion concerning convictions. I agree that these powers are necessary; but, nevertheless, I also agree that they are at the heart of the clause and of the Bill itself. However the strenuous character of Clause 11 is undeniable. This may be a point which we shall come back to at the Committee stage.
The codes of practice envisaged under the Bill have been given a welcome by interested parties, not least because they will ensure even-handed enforcement. This is important for those who are involved in the Bill.
In Clause 39 the subject of enforcement is discussed. Here, as concerns the drafting of codes, I ask how far advanced the work is. Preparation of codes could delay the introduction of the Bill for which the noble Baroness gave a date., and I think that it would be a great pity if, for that reason —important though codes are —we had any unnecessary delays in giving effect to the Bill by reason of a problem with the codes. We had rather an unhappy experience in your Lordshps' House with the drafting of a code concerning bargain offers under the Consumer Protection Act. Subsequent experience with that code —an unhappy experience in its entirety —leads me to think that codes in themselves are not always the answer to every problem.
The noble Baroness dealt in some detail with the registration and licensing of premises. The distinction that she made about which premises will be registered and which will be licensed is exactly

759
the one which I had already decided was the correct distinction. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask at this stage what the cost of registration and licensing will be. In deciding what costs will be made for these services, one wonders whether any thought has been given to the difference between a very large establishment and a very small one. Obviously, if a common registration fee were decided upon, this would bear somewhat harshly on smaller shops. Here one dares to suggest that if no decision has already been taken, thought may be given to using the rateable value as an indicator of what the registration fee ought to be.
We welcome Clause 23 on food hygiene training. At the same time I wish to ask the Minister whether food authorities will recognise hygiene training courses arranged by food businesses or groups of such businesses which follow schemes approved by the local authority. There is a problem with the training of staff in food hygiene, particularly in those areas of retailing and food processing where transient staffs are a normal fact of life and therefore the continuity of training may not be as good as it should be.
Hygiene and safety are also important in the home. It is important that continuing publicity should be given to those matters among housewives. The pamphlet recently issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on hygiene in the home was in my view an admirable document. The main factor, as I see it, is to keep those matters constantly before the housewife because there is a tendency to overlook these things and, with the passage of time, perhaps unwittingly to take risks.
Clause 17 is concerned with implementing Community requirements and also in a sense with the irradiation of food. I felt that the noble Baroness skated somewhat lightly over the controversial question of the irradiation of food because there is no doubt that if arguments arise over this Bill they will concern that matter. The Bill has found a facile solution to this problem. Under the Bill powers are taken to permit the irradiation of food, but no general indication is given of how or when the powers will be used. We already know that there is a sizeable volume of opinion in this country against irradiated food in any shape or form. It would be better for the Ministry to recognise that fact and deal with this matter in an open and frank manner.
As I understand the state of play, when the Government first announced their intention to proceed with the irradiation of food they did so for the reasons which the noble Baroness has given. However, they did so on the basis that, even at that stage, they were going rather further than the draft Community directive on irradiated food required. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me about the matter and I remember suggesting to her that it might be politic, in introducing what I knew even at that stage to be a controversial matter, to limit the proposals to what was in the draft Community directive. Since then, of course, the draft Community directive has had the misfortune to receive the "thumbs down" sign from the European Parliament which only favours the irradiation of
760
herbs and spices. The Government have taken that very much in their stride. In a Written Answer in the Official Report of another place on 28th November the Minister responsible for food commented at col. 190 on the implications for government policy of the recent European Parliamentary vote. He said:
"The vote as such has no implications for Government policy. It is the means by which the Parliament has set out its opinion on the proposals from the Commission. The co-operation procedure provides for the Commission to take a view of the Parliament's opinion and for the Council to seek a common position among the member states".
If I may say so in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who is a former distinguished Member of that European Parliament, those comments put the European Parliament nicely in its place. In spite of all the powers given to it, or the powers it thinks it has, it remains what it originally was, which is a consultative body giving opinions. However, given the rates of pay which its Members enjoy, it is not a bad body to belong to. Where does this leave her Majesty's Government?
I am interested in particular in the position of the House of Lords' Select Committee on Community affairs in this area because I understand it has been working assiduously, as always, on the draft directive and is due to report on it fairly shortly. In my opinion it will be to the advantage of this House, certainly in Committee, if we have the benefit of the informed opinion of the Select Committee on this vital question as there is a sharp conflict of opinion in the country at large. The more information we have to guide us in this area, the better it will be for all concerned.
On the question of irradiated food we also come up against the problem that, although the Government are taking many powers to themselves to make orders under the Bill, they propose as a general theme to use the annulment procedure for the making of these orders. I must tell the noble Baroness that already I have received from diverse sources the unsolicited opinion that the use of the annulment procedure in areas as important and as vital as these across the board is totally unacceptable. That is my own view.
We shall need to look very seriously at the relevant clause when we come to it because the powers are far too sweeping and they are totally inappropriate to the questions which will arise in the making of orders under this Bill. If one may fly a kite in this particular direction, I should say that, in view of the credit which the Government are seeking to take for their new consumer panel, they may care to consider seeking advice from it on whether or not the annulment or the affirmative procedure should be used when the Government are ready to introduce draft regulations to your Lordships' House. At any rate as the procedure stands it goes too far and for that reason we are not very happy with the proposition that the annulment procedure should apply.
In general this is basically a good Bill, but in my view it needs to rekindle public confidence in food throughout the food chain. The White Paper on which the Bill is based failed to impress because for

761
many of us it was a public relations exercise in which the Ministry of Agriculture sought to take too much credit for things it had little to do with. The Bill rectifies that position and we now have an opportunity to deal with a measure which is relevant to the needs of consumers in a fast changing food environment. It is a Bill which, with some improvements, can meet the needs of the times.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I wish to welcome the Bill. It contains many positive features which are clearly stated. However, like the noble Lord I should like to see some modifications which I shall discuss in a moment. I wish to begin by declaring an interest as president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. I am glad to say that in that capacity I had a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness a few weeks ago which led to a clearer understanding of what was in the mind of the Ministry.
Needless to say, as someone connected with the trading standards administration I am glad to note that an additional £30 million a year will be taken into account in next year's revenue support grant settlement for local authorities to enforce this legislation. Noble Lords will no doubt recall our concern when we were discussing the consumer protection legislation in early 1987 that no provision was made for enforcement. That seemed to be a major weakness of that legislation and I am very glad to see that it is rectified on this occasion.
There is one aspect of financial assistance that I wish to return to in a moment and that is an early and preliminary provision for training. I do not think it is sufficient to provide the moneys concerned, starting from 1991–92, without having trained up the personnel beforehand. I shall indicate the relatively small sums which I feel could be involved in providing for that training.
There are two omissions in the Bill which I regret. The first is that there is not to be an independent food safety and standards agency. The second is that there is no provision for product liability. On the first omission, the Minister went some way when he announced on 2nd November the setting up of a food safety directorate within the Ministry. Certainly that is to be welcomed.
We also welcome the establishment of a consumer panel. However, there are many, who are concerned with protecting the consumer in this area, who would have been happier to see an independent directorate, operating in much the same way as the Office of Fair Trading in relation to the DTI. We feel that that degree of independence could give a greater sense of security to the public and could provide a more visible implementation of the provisions and intentions of the Bill than a directorate, however efficiently and well run, which is an integral part of the department. I hope that as we proceed with the consideration of the Bill that aspect, which we brought to the attention of the noble Baroness when we had our meeting with her some weeks ago, can be taken into account once more. I should not have thought it was too great a problem to give greater
762
emphasis to the independence of the new directorate. I assume we can be reassured that the members of the consumer panel will have access to all appropriate food safety and standards information in order to make an informed judgment on behalf of consumers. It would be necessary that the members of the panel should themselves be sufficiently well qualified to discharge their responsibility on behalf of all of us.
Assuming that these points can be met, it seems to me that there is also a need for experienced trading standards officers to be invited to serve as advisers to the consumer panel and also, I believe, as members of the directorate. The Department of Health has for many years had the benefit of two experienced environmental health officers working full-time within that department. Chernobyl and subsequent accidents, which have resulted in contaminated animal feed and human foodstuffs, suggest that the new MAFF directorate would likewise benefit from being able to call immediately on practical and enforcement advice from trading standards officers serving from within the directorate and therefore familiar with the work the directorate is carrying out. I should be happy to write to the noble Baroness with detailed recommendations in that regard if she would like that.
In regard to product liability, noble Lords may recall that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, moved an important amendment during our consideration at Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill in early 1987 for the application of the consumer protection provisions in the product liability directive to be incorporated without any exception in the subsequent legislation. However, although this was widely supported by the House, and indeed on Report stage was again brought forward and even more widely supported, it was resisted by the Government. I hope that this Bill will provide an opportunity for repairing that omission. I should like to put that forward in clue time at Committee stage.
I should now like to return to the question of further training for trading standards officers, environmental health officers and public analysts. We are grateful for the £30 million that will be provided, but it will come into operation from 1991–92 onwards. What we need, in order to make the best use of this money, is to ensure that we can from now train up the personnel suitably to take on this new role.
The amount of money involved in this would be relatively small. I have been advised that we are talking about a couple of million pounds or so, bearing in mind that these officers are already well qualified and that what would be needed would be to bring them up to date with factory enforcement methods as opposed to the current law, which mainly prescribes enforcement at the point of retail sales. It is not an arduous training process but it would mean that if an advance payment could be made of that sort of order, these people could be ready to assume these increased responsibilities at the due date.
I may say that the Department of Trade and Industry provides a good example of this sort of

763
assistance being provided. For example, it provided £220,000 in the past for quality training in factories; for quality assurance training; for additional training for trading standards officers, and so on —quite substantial sums which have helped considerably to reinforce the quality of the service. I therefore hope that the Ministry will be able to follow the example of their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and will be persuaded to make this small additional sum of money available as soon as possible.
These are the general points that I wish to make in relation to this admirable Bill. There are a number of detailed amendments that we should all like to bring forward at the Committee stage. In my case we are perhaps a little concerned about the extent of the Minister's powers of delegation. The noble Baroness, in introducing the Bill, explained why this had been introduced. We accept that. Nevertheless, we feel that there could be some case for introducing an affirmative resolution as a way of dealing with these extended powers, and we shall draw attention to those.
In summary, I should like to say that we welcome this Bill. We think it answers many of the qualms that people now have; and with one or two of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred, added to those to which I referred, we believe that it could be made into an excellent measure.
4.25 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, while I welcome many of the provisions of this Bill there are some aspects, two of which I shall speak about, which worry me. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has already spoken about irradiation, so I shall not speak about that.
One of the things that worries me is the apparent lack of any power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about feedstuffs and the feeding of livestock in view of the suspicion — I think it is more than a suspicion —that a primary cause of salmonella in poultry may be the feeding of birds on their deceased chums and on antibiotics. This seems a serious omission, if it is an omission. I think that it is unless that power is implicit in Clause 1(1)(a). Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will be able to tell me the answer to that when she comes to wind up.
The other thing I am worried about is this. As worded at present the Bill sounds the death knell of charity fetes, dances, garden openings, sales of work, coffee mornings, wine and cheese parties —you name it; in short, all the multitude of fund-raising events that take place every week all over Britain from Land's End to the northernmost tip of Shetland at which food is provided by voluntary workers either for sale on a stall or as refreshments.
Millions of pounds are raised every year by these social events for innumerable good causes, which would be very hard hit without them. Moreover, they form the backbone of the social life of town, village and countryside, and the social consequences
764
of killing them would be very grave. In view of the fact that I read in some newspaper that the Secretary of State had said that the Bill would not affect church fetes, I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government to do that; but according to the legal advice that I have received that is precisely what the Bill, as it stands, would do.
Clause 2(1) provides that the supply of food should have the same meaning as the sale of the food. Subsection (2) provides that the,
"Act shall apply Ito] any entertainment"
and that,
"'entertainment' includes any social gathering'.
In my legal adviser's opinion, charitable functions would be subject to the provisions of the Bill as they are within the definition of entertainment and supplying food otherwise than on sale in terms of Clause 2. He suggests that the words "social gathering" should be deleted from this clause, for as the Bill is, I think, to protect consumers and improve the standards of hygiene facilities of commercial businesses there seems no good reason why these regulations are extended to social gatherings. I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's comments on this point when she comes to wind up.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the first thing I want to do this afternoon is to congratulate my noble friend the Minister of State for the clear way in which she has introduced this particularly important Bill. I want to pass on my personal congratulations to the Ministry as well as to all departments. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend Lady Hooper will be taking part today and at all stages of the Bill.
I congratulate the departments on this initiative, which I believe is much needed. It is topical and it is relevant to the food industry. What will be of particular relevance to many in your Lordships' House is the great annual exhibition at Smithfield, which is taking place this week. No doubt today, later this week and perhaps even next week, we may have the benefit of many members of the agricultural industry who may be able to come and listen to the deliberations of your Lordships, and perhaps even learn something.
Many of the points that I wish to raise have been raised by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I have no doubt that many of the points that I have in mind will be raised by later speakers, so I shall desist from many of my more quixotic thoughts and try to be brief. I wish to concentrate on one subject which has already aroused a considerable amount of controversy this afternoon; namely, irradiation.
Noble Lords may know that I had the honour to serve for five and a half years as the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. One of the constituent sections of the Department of Agriculture there is the scientific service. Our pride and joy went under the name of the Food Irradiation Unit and was situated in Newforge Lane, a suburb of Belfast. I recall my noble friend the Minister of State paying a visit there with me. She nods assent, so that visit clearly did her no harm.

765
The process of irradiation can engender some terrifying thoughts among us if we remember the results of the dramatic explosion at Chernobyl which caused appalling havoc with the sheep industry, particularly in Great Britain. It also caused some problems in Northern Ireland, but a year later than on the mainland. I am sure that I speak for my noble friend when I say that we were awash with bequerels, Caesium 135 and Caesium 137. My noble friend paid a visit to Northern Ireland and saw some of the effects on the sheep and the lamb industry there of one particularly malignant form of radiation.
Under the cover of the Bill before us today we hope to discuss the question of irradiation. A patent for a process akin to irradiation was granted as far back as 1921. The process is in operation in 21 countries and is permitted in 35 countries. The working party in the United Kingdom, which goes under the name of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated Novel Foods —I enjoy these acronyms; one never knows what to make of them —recommended that irradiation should be permitted, but under certain safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and all noble Lords including me will be on all-fours on this matter. I had perhaps better not deal at too great length with the overall average dose of 10 kilograys. No doubt my noble friend Lady Hooper will be able to advise us on the matter, if not today at a later stage. We shall no doubt go deeply into the subject.
As noble Lords will know, there was a report in 1986 with further study in 1987, but the one thread which went through all those deliberations and is central to our discussion of the subject this afternoon is the matter of licensing and inspection. I believe that I am right in thinking that Clauses 16 and 19 are particularly germane to the problems of licensing both the process of irradiation and the premises where it may be carried out. Above all, it is important to realise that licensing should be under the direct aegis of a competent national authority. I believe that that is part and parcel of the directive referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. My noble friend Lord Middleton may have more to say about the matter, so I had better move on.
It is important that the facts concerning irradiation should be publicised and that the consumer and the housewife should have confidence in the process. It is particularly important that the destination of the food should be verified and that labels should be precise and well detailed. Above all, we should understand that irradiation will not make food that was originally unfit in any way fit for human consumption, let alone any other consumption. We should also understand that irradiation will not change to any significant extent —if indeed to any measurable extent —the nutritional value, taste and texture of food. If that were to happen, it would nullify the entire process.
I understand that irradiation has some benefits in that it will reduce, if not entirely eliminate, pathogenic organisms such as salmonella, campylobacter —I received some tuition about that earlier, I hope that I have it right —and listeria. However, one virulent virus which it will not cure and which received some publicity and caused a
766
considerable amount of concern to my noble friend Lady Trumpington and me was clostridium botulinum. It is a particularly virulent virus and has particularly unpleasant characteristics in human and bovine species. I understand that irradiation is of great use in herbs as well as in some fruit and potatoes. That will suffice from me on the subject of irradiation. As I do not have an O-level in science, I shall allow my noble friends who have a little more experience to deal with the matter in more detail.
There are one or two points in the Bill on which I seek clarification from my noble friend Lady Hooper. I strongly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the subject of the offences in Clause 21. I was not entirely sure about the defence spelt out in Clause 21(3)(c), but I think I am half-way to understanding it. Perhaps I may contact my noble friend later or perhaps write to her.
On the question of food safety and consumer protection, the Bill takes us a substantial way along the path of progress that we seek, especially in the 1990s. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Hooper will confirm the definition of "entertainment" in line 5 on page 3. That is quite interesting. I hope that it is wide enough and covers all the venues that might be relevant to the protection that the Food Safety Bill should give.
I am delighted to see the consumer protection aspects of Clauses 3, 8, 14 and 16. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me to answer one query regarding Clause 5, in which there are frequent references to the Inner and Middle Temples, which I understand are not too far from this House. I wonder why those two institutions have been mentioned. Why has Gray's Inn not been named? There may be cries of partisanship from noble Lords who are members of those institutions. No doubt my noble friend will be able to enlighten me.
We all know that the greatest protection to the consumer and the public is the reputation of the supplier, be he or she the retailer, the wholesaler or the farmer who is the original or primary producer. Once a reputation for wholesomeness and all the other qualities that we look for in our food is lost, it is extremely difficult ever to regain it.
Perhaps my noble friend Lady Hooper will write to me to let me know under which clause the celebrated case of Donoghue v. Stevenson —a 1932 case from Scotland concerning a snail found in a bottle of ginger wine —will be caught. That case runs to 40 pages, but I shall desist from mentioning one of them today. I should be extremely grateful if my noble friend would write to me or even let me know later this evening.
In conclusion, I believe that the Bill will set the pattern for the food industry, for agriculture and for all of us for the next 20, 30 or indeed 50 years. I bid the Bill all good wishes and success. I commend my noble friends for producing it and wish to add my support.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, before the noble Lord takes his seat, perhaps I may put a question to him. In his introductory remarks he appeared to

767
be equating the radiation effects of fall-out from incidents such as that at Chernobyl with the process of irradiation of foodstuffs. Am I correct in believing that he regards the two processes as the same?
Lord Lyell: Not entirely, my Lords. I said to your Lordships that I do not have any major scientific qualifications. I shall look forward to taking a lesson. If I have caused any confusion, I apologise.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I apologise to the House in that a longstanding commitment will prevent me remaining until the conclusion of this debate. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her reply to the debate feels able to deal with any of the questions that are troubling me about the Bill, I shall of course tomorrow read with care in Hansard what she has thought it right to say.
I think it was Florence Nightingale who said that the hospitals should do the sick no harm. Conversely, we should ensure that food does the healthy no harm. In stating that objective it should be recognised that prevention is better than cure. The first question therefore to ask of this Bill must be: how comprehensive is it? That is a difficult question to answer in the absence of detailed regulations. Once again it is necessary to protest that a broad-ranging statutory code cannot properly be scrutinised by Parliament in the absence of regulations which alone can give practical meaning to its general provisions and tell us how it will work in practice. Therefore we must be entitled in this debate to ask some specific questions about what the regulations will contain.
Responsibility for ensuring that food poisoning does not occur at any stage in the production process is by no means confined to the retail end of the chain of food production. On the contrary, food poisoning can result from any activity in the chain of food production and sale from beginning to end. Consumers are surely entitled to be satisfied that effective action in preventing food poisoning is being taken at every stage in the production chain, including the earliest one. At every production stage the goal should be to prevent or block any risk of food contamination from the first stage to the next and every subsequent stage.
In trying to understand this Bill I ask myself whether its emphasis is on the food end product rather than a consideration of the whole continuum of production events from, for example, the broiler house where the chicken is hatched, through every production stage —killing, cleaning, preparation, packaging, storage and transport —until it ends up available for sale at the retail outlet. The consumer at the purchase point surely should have confidence that everything that has been done to produce the food that he is purchasing has been subject to very careful hygienic considerations at every stage of production.
So the basic question that should be asked of the Bill before it is given an unqualified welcome is this: does it apply to every activity that is involved in the
768
production of food for the consumer? I am bound to say that it does not appear to me to highlight activities at each stage of food production: for example, the animal on the farm and the feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish.
In common with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, I confess that I am very puzzled by Clause 1(2)(b) which excludes from the definition of food "feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish". In common with the noble Lady therefore my welcome to the Bill is distinctly qualified until I hear an explanation about this matter. Why are we excluding from the new statutory code feeding stuffs for animals which have been highlighted in recent food poisoning incidents: for example, the feeding of chickens with chicken entrails, carcases and debris?
Most food poisoning incidents in recent years have been related to animal sources such as salmonella in eggs. Should it not be recognised that every raw material that contributes to food is capable of being rendered injurious to health? For example, there is bread, which so far as I know includes flour, water, yeast, salt and fat (although I am ready to be corrected on that as on so many other things). Each of those raw materials is capable of causing the final product, the bread, to be injurious to health.
When I look at Clause 1(4) I am puzzled to see that although food includes drink, "drink" does
"not include references to tap water unless it is bottled".
Why is tap water excluded? Is it excluded because it is not politically timely for water to be considered as a cause of food poisoning? Yet we know of recent events in Oxfordshire where water has had to be boiled in order to make it safe for consumption.
It is the intended width of the Bill that I question. Are there to be regulations which will cover the production of primary food sources on the farm? Can we be told clearly that the intent of Clause 1(3) is to include within the definitions, and therefore within the scope of the Bill, all food production on farms and in factory units, or is that not so?
I go to Clause 7(1) and look at the offences listed there. It seems to me that they all relate to positive actions that have been undertaken on food such as adding a substance to it and so rendering it injurious to health. I should welcome an explanation on that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I hope I am wrong but as I read that clause it would be an offence to add a toxic substance to milk (which is surely right) but not an offence (which is surely wrong) to fail to pasteurise it at the required temperature and time. Moreover, as I read the clause it would not be an offence to fail to apply a hygienic procedure to avoid contamination of the chicken with salmonella. That should surely be an offence whether or not salmonella is specifically found later in the food.
Food safety regulations should surely be laid down as quality assurance systems from the earliest stage, and they should be enforced. Failure to comply with regulations —the quality assurance system —should itself be an offence. We should not have to wait until a salmonella is grown in the food on sale or in the patient. A reasonable but clear quality assurance system throughout every production stage should

769
minimise the likelihood of food being produced for sale in a state that is injurious to health.
I suggest that what is required is a regulatory framework of control over all the methods and stages of producing food so as to monitor that they are being carried out to an acceptable standard. Thus, quality assurance would be designed to ensure that every production method and procedure was to an acceptable standard.
With reference to Clause 7(2) I suggest that food should be regarded as injurious to health having regard to the probable effect of that food not only on the health of the person consuming it but also on the health of the person handling it. That is perhaps something to which we might return in Committee.
From Clause 8(2) I have the impression —I am ready to be contradicted if I am wrong —that all the emphasis is on waiting until food appears on the market unfit for human consumption. Presumably in order to establish those offences the environmental health officers will have to take large scale random samples for testing or wait until there is an outbreak of food poisoning.
Prevention is always better than cure. Food should fail to comply with food safety requirements, for example, if it is stored under unsuitable environmental conditions, irrespective of whether or not an individual item itself is proved to be injurious to health. That is analogous to sterile medical products. It is the process and not the product that is tested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, called particular attention to Clause 8(3). The provision presumes that the whole of a batch is affected if part fails to comply with food safety standards. I wonder whether the clause imposes too lax a standard when it provides the defence "until the contrary is proved". I doubt the widsom of that let-out clause. Perhaps the Government might consider it again. Should the whole batch not be deemed to fail to comply? I assume that a batch represents a quantity of food prepared by a process on one occasion.
Statistical laws and the limits of sensitivity of a microbiological assay may well give what are called false negatives. The next negative sample in a batch should not therefore be used to imply that the rest of the batch is safe. The preferred and safer action would be to reject the entire batch once a part of it has been demonstrated to fail to comply with the requirements. In fact that is a basic requirement of an effective quality assurance system: batch testing, batch records and batch rejection.
When I consider Clause 9(1) I become anxious when I see that the authorised officer's powers are confined to the inspection of food. Why are not also the means of production of food —the machinery, the quality of the environment, for example the temperature and the hygienic standards —being applied in the food production premises? I appreciate that I may be told that all will become clear from regulations made under Clause 11. But without the regulations this House simply cannot begin to judge. I would prefer to see a clear quality assurance system, and if the standards are not
770
maintained then the food should be deemed to be unsafe.
For example, Clause 15 provides for an offence of falsely labelling food. The provisions are of course welcome. But let us take a topical example —a claim that food has been irradiated. It is the very example that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave when explaining the clause in her speech. It is in practice very difficult to test that the irradiation of food has occurred, unlike, for example, testing food in a refrigerator where the temperature can be measured. The concern for the consumer is that a false claim is made on a label that food has been irradiated. The consequences might be a substantially inflated price, poorer keeping qualities and the possibility of contaminated food persisting. But if the Bill were to bring in regulations for a quality system of food production, such as a kite mark, then the food producer's irradiation plant records could be checked and any of his food could be deemed suspect if failures of compliance were noted.
I then come to what we can divine about regulations which may (not must) come under Clause 16. The regulations will be all important. Without them we cannot scrutinise the system that the Government really intend for food safety. Let me make a few observations.
Clause 16(1)(b) talks of provision being made for securing that food meets,
"such microbiological standards … as may be specified by … regulations".
The regulations should surely not be confined to microbiological standards. The olive oil disaster in Spain was one example of a toxic chemical rendering a food unsafe. Standards should surely be applied to the non-microbiological toxic hazards, for example, chemicals.
Clause 16(1) states that:
"The Ministers may by regulations make —
(c) provision for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the use of any process or treatment in the preparation of food or any class of food;
(d) provision for securing the observance of hygienic conditions and practices in connection with the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to food or food sources; and
(e) provision for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may be applied to food or any class of food".
I am bound to say that this heralds for me a very poor approximation to a proper quality assurance system. There should be regulations to test the performance of a process applied to food and not just to regulate that a particular process is being used or is said to be used. The regulations should include training in all aspects of the food production process, including hygiene.
Clause 23 —under which a food authority may (not must) provide training courses in food hygiene is very weak. Surely what is required is an independent assessment of training requirements for food handlers, laboratory staff, inspectors and the like. There must surely be some inspection to ensure the adequacy of training schemes set up by food businesses.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is probably very rude of me to interrupt the noble Lord. However, when I was speaking originally I said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health is today issuing a consultation paper on the subject to which the noble Lord is referring. Therefore none of these matters is written in stone until the consultation period is through.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I hope that what will emerge from the consultation process is an independent training authority which will be charged with giving accreditation to laboratories and businesses or local authorities offering in-house training. I hope that, in line with EC directives inspectors will meet the standards set by an independent testing authority. The regulations should include provisions for batch records, traceability of source of food, and additives in the production process. They should also require quality control tests to be undertaken by the food producer and the appointment of quality control staff, distinct from the production line staff, for in-house quality control.
Under Clause 19, registration is to be confined to premises to be used for the purposes of a food business. I shall be very happy to be contradicted and corrected, but it seems that we shall not have a registration scheme also to be applied to the farmer producing meat, animal feeds and the like.
I return to my original point, and end with it. What is the true extent of the monitoring envisaged by this Bill? Will it be a glorified charter for environmental health officers to instigate more food sampling so that there will be some more active policing of food, the end product, suspected of being injurious to health, but nothing much else? On reading Hansard tomorrow —in accordance with the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that there will be a full reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to all the questions that are raised in the debate —I shall welcome a clear statement of the extent to which the new regulatory framework will ensure that food contamination in the early stages of production does not occur. Does the noble Baroness accept that the goal ought to be to break the chain of food poisoning very early before the point of sale to the consumer? Of course there will always be some late breaks in the chain. For example, a food handler may be a carrier of a food poisoning organism. But these should be capable of being minimised.
I ask this question. Is it accepted that what is required is a genuine and effective quality assurance system, properly enforced from the earliest stage of production, in particular on the farm? If the noble Baroness accepts that, exactly how will the regulations achieve it?
5.00 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, as the Minister said in introducing the Bill, consultation has been taking place for some time. Therefore, it is not a reaction to the recent food safety scares, although we must accept that there have been a large number of scares
772
about salmonella —even in your Lordships' House —and about listeria and botulism.
The incidents of food poisoning have risen from 12,000 notified cases in 1981 to 41,000 in 1988. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has reminded us, numbers are rising again this year. Not all those affected consult their doctors and, therefore, the figures are lower than the number of cases. A great deal of the increased concern is due to the new salmonella strain. However, a number of other factors have led to the increased number of cases of food poisoning and increased concern about the problem.
As we move into the more environmentally conscious 1990s there is a greater interest in the quality of life. The safety of products is one aspect of that. In part that is due to the food safety problems caused by the vast array of foods on display and available today. In particular, I refer to the ready-made meals and cooked-chilled foods. More people now travel abroad and we have become more adventurous in our eating habits.
We give a general welcome to the provisions of the Bill in promoting the safety of the whole food supply chain and in the strengthening of the powers of enforcement. A satisfactory enforcement system is absolutely necessary if the benefits of the Bill are to be realised.
As a vice-president of the Association of County Councils, I must express its concern about the additional resources. Thirty million pounds is being provided in next year's revenue support grant settlement. However, there are doubts about whether that will be sufficient to meet the additional responsibilities and the proposed level of inspection and enforcement. The ACC believes that there will be a need for a relatively small sum of money to be provided by mid-1990 to bring trading standards officers, environmental health officers and public analysts up to the necessary standard of expertise to implement the Bill and the directive from day one.
Given such a commitment from MAFF, the local authorities and the local authority associations, in conjunction with the various professional institutes, would be able to provide the supplementary training necessary to meet the requirements of the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive and the Food Safety Bill.
The Association of County Councils also welcomes Clause 5 confirming that the non-metropolitan counties are also food authorities. However, counties and districts will be food authorities for the purpose of this Act and will have enforcement powers. But the Secretary of State will have the power by regulation to decide which class of authority enforces which provision. Clause 5(4) allows the Minister by order to transfer functions between shire counties and shire districts.
Clause 6(3) provides power for the Minister to direct that certain duties imposed on food authorities be transferred to the Minister. The local authorities are worried about that aspect of the Bill. They ask for an assurance concerning the use of those proposed powers which, in the Bill as drafted,

773
significantly reduce democratic control over legislation. The EC directive aims:
"not to interfere with systems of proven worth which are best suited to the particular situation in each member state".
I hope that in his reply the Minister can give that assurance to the local authorities and their association.
As regards the general safety requirements in Clause 8, the offence of selling food that does not comply with food safety requirements is set out. That is food that has been rendered injurious to health and is sold for human consumption, or which is so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption. The National Consumer Council is on record as welcoming that but it would have liked a more positive duty to provide safe food. The Consumers' Association says that it still does not meet the standards of other consumer protection legislation. No doubt we shall return to that matter and look at a general safety requirement for food such as exists in respect of suppliers of other consumer goods.
The new powers in Clause 9 in respect of inspection and seizure of food are generally welcomed, as are the new powers for enforcement officers to make spot checks on food production processes and to withdraw food from sale. The National Consumer Council accepts that owners of safe food wrongfully seized are as entitled to compensation as are the victims of unsafe food. But they believe that compensation order provisions should not act as a disincentive to effective enforcement.
The Food and Drink Federation has argued that a time limit should be specified within which an officer, having given notice of suspect food, must indicate his intention to the person in charge of that food either to confirm or to rescind the notice. It also believes that compensation for the wrongful seizure of food should be not only for the depreciation in the value of the food seized but should also take account of other commercial losses. They appear to be valid points to which we may wish to return.
From the number of lobbying documents that we have received there would appear to be a difference of opinion between consumer organisations about registration and licensing. The National Consumer Council believes that licensing is preferable because it minimises the risk to public health as it is based on a system of prior approval. On the other hand, the Consumers' Association favours the tougher approach of licensing under which every food premise would need a licence before it could open. Rather than being open ended such licences should be reviewed regularly after a fixed period. The Food and Drink _ Federation supports compulsory registration and believes that licensing should apply only to specific processes and practices where prior approval of the premises for such use is deemed essential on the ground of food safety.
I believe that there will be general criticism about the amount of power that Clause 19 gives to the Minister to regulate as he or she thinks fit. The clause would allow a government to introduce whole
774
new tiers of bureaucratic regulation without passing a sentence of new legislation. We must devote some time to the registration/licensing argument. To require licences for all food premises would be to impose a very expensive system of checks which would make life difficult for small businesses. However, I believe that licensing must go further than the restricted list which the producers are putting forward.
I believe that there will also be opposition to the amount of power given to the Minister through regulations. The Government should spell out their intentions in full legislative form, otherwise Parliament is prevented from debating and amending the proposals which are central to the Bill. The Minister and other noble Lords will do well to read the lead article in today's Independent concerning similar powers given to the Minister concerned with education in respect of student loans.
It is not a long Bill and it is not party political but I am sure that there is scope for a great deal of discussion. We shall need to know more about irradiation and the necessary safeguards. There will be arguments about the "due diligence" defence, the offences and the punishment and the codes of practice. The removal of Crown immunity will generally be welcomed, as will better training of food handlers, provided that sufficient funds are available to make the training schemes effective, and also regulations that ensure that such training is comprehensive in all areas.
I return to the question of funding. Extra money to ensure that local authorities have adequate human and financial resources to administer and enforce the regulations is vital to the success of the Bill. I believe that the extra money allocated to food safety administration and inspection should be specifically for those purposes and not part of the general funds of an authority where it may be used for other purposes according to the authority's own priorities.
We wish the Bill well. Like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I shall have to leave the Chamber for about an hour in the early part of this evening but I hope to be back in time to hear the winding up speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister and several other noble Lords referred to irradiation, which is a food processing technique at present not allowed in this country except in special cases where a sterile diet is required in hospitals. I understand from what the Minister said, that it is the Government's intention to bring forward regulations allowing food irradiation as soon as this Bill is agreed by Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, told your Lordships, Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee on the European Community has just finished an inquiry into the irradiation of foodstuffs, although our report to your Lordships is still in draft form. Therefore, anything which I say is my own personal opinion based on the evidence which my committee heard.

775
I propose today to be brief and to say very little about the food process itself. If our report is to be debated in this House, then that will be the time to discuss it more fully. I merely say that I agree with the Government's view, as stated by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, that irradiation has a useful contribution to make to the reduction of food-borne diseases in certain products. As my noble friend Lord Lyell reminded us, it is useful because it can be used to control salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. Those pathogenic organisms are the subject of increasing public concern, not least among your Lordships, some of whom, like myself, have rather painful memories of being poisoned on our own premises.
There are those who say that irradiation should not be allowed until a satisfactory test has been developed that a product has been so treated. I do not agree with them. However, of course it is very important that the research now going on into finding a testing technique should be pursued.
Because of the potential hazard in any process using ionising radiation, it is essential that tight control be exercised at any irradiation plant. Given that safeguard, the Health and Safety Executive has told us that irradiation plants do not present it with any particular difficulties in ensuring that risks are kept under control.
It is claimed that food irradiation is one of the most comprehensively researched of all food processing techniques. That research has been evaluated by expert groups from many countries as well as by the joint FAO/WHO/International Atomic Energy Committee on Food Safety and by our own Government's special advisory committee, which reported in 1986. The general opinion of all those bodies was that food irradiation up to a dose of 10 kilograys is a safe method of food treatment which presents no toxicological hazard and no special nutritional or microbiological problems. The draft European Commission directive, on which my sub-committee has based its inquiry, was published just a year ago. That proposes an initial list of foodstuffs for which irradiation can be permitted in prescribed doses. It also prescribes a regulatory framework for the control of irradiation plants.
Our own Government announced in February 1988 that they accepted in principle that the ban on irradiated foods should be lifted provided that a proper control framework could be established. Yet another working group was set up. Following its report the Minister of Agriculture announced last June that the Government would bring forward legislation to allow the ban to be lifted in the Food Safety Bill. As we have heard, Clause 16 allows Ministers to regulate the use of any food process with particular reference to food safety and for the protection and promotion of the interests of consumers.
The Government's approach differs from that of the Commission and proposes a general authorisation to allow irradiation up to a maximum average dose of 10 kilograys. My noble friend the Minister also reminded us of the licensing procedure which will be brought forward under Clause 18.
776
My own view is that there is a lot to be said, where new techniques are developing all the time, for a fairly flexible regime which would allow the actual take-up of irradiated foods to be determined by consumer demand. However, the Commission's more detailed proposals have yet to be agreed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us, already those proposals have run into a certain amount of trouble in the European Parliament, which proposes a very much more restrictive application of the process.
I do not know what view my sub-committee will take, but it seems to me that, while the Government are certainly right to assume enabling powers in this Bill, any domestic regulations will have to await the outcome of a decision in the Council of Ministers on the Commission's proposals. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also made that point. That is certainly the intention of the Dutch Government, as they told us last month when we visited a working irradiation plant in Holland. They will not legislate until the Community law on irradiation is established.
I believe that irradiation will not figure largely as a means of food processing in the UK for some time to come. The public is not yet prepared for it, although a really serious outbreak of food poisoning may alter that outlook. Producers, retailers and consumers have all signalled their reservations. Except in the case of imported spices, where urgent measures are required, there does not seem to me to be an enormous hurry. It seems to me that any detailed UK regulations in respect of irradiation of food can only be drafted within a framework of Community law. I have no doubt that that is what the Government intend. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm, when she replies to the debate, that that is the case.
5.18 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, we have before us a Bill which has been awaited for a long time. There is no doubt that there are some good measures in it. The registration of premises is a step in the right direction. Whether it is a step far enough will doubtless be debated at a later stage. Measures to make suppliers accountable for the safety of the food which they sell are much to be welcomed. Powers of enforcement are provided for and it is a relief—not to say a turn-up for the books —to find an acknowledgement by the Government that there will be costs falling on local authorities which need to be taken account of. The move towards proper training for the handlers of food can only be good.
However, there are also omissions and disappointments in the Bill. Before I look at those, I should like to say something of a more general nature. There was a time when the intimate link between food and health was well understood. In many medical traditions, it still is. In modern Western medicine, it has largely been lost sight of. This has partly to do with the love affair with high technology. It is also, I suspect, connected with a peculiarly English fear of being thought faddish or hypochondriac. This makes it quite difficult for voices to be heard which proclaim some of the

777
things which diet can achieve; for example, there is evidence to suggest that the introduction of our highly processed Western diet has done much to undermine the health of more primitive societies. There is, too, a growing body of evidence which points to the link between that same diet and mental functioning in terms both of intellectual development and deviant behaviour. There are strong indications that a nutritional approach to preconceptual care —paying attention to vitamins, trace elements, additives, pesticides and toxic metals such as lead and aluminium —can help parents to have normal children.
There is an organisation called Foresight which has documented many hundreds of success stories in this field, casting an interesting light on the claims for embryo research after the event which your Lordships will be discussing in a couple of days' time. There is also the area of food allergy and intolerance, where I have some personal experience, which seems to be a puzzle to many doctors though less so to the man in the street. It is not cancer and heart disease alone among the degenerative scourges of our time which have an association with what we eat.
Acquaintance with these and other facets of the subject has convinced me that there is a lot more to food than the simple avoidance of microbiological hazards. That is why, unlike some others of your Lordships, I find this Bill disappointing. Even its title with the word "Safety" sounds a negative note. There was surely an opportunity here for a wider view to be taken of the nation's diet, with a positive approach to health which might, for example, have included the encouragement of further research into some of the areas I have mentioned. There has never —at any rate since the war —been a co-ordinated food policy and it sadly looks as if the chance to have one now will be missed.
Other disappointments centre on the protection of the consumer. The Bill does quite a lot in this direction on a limited front. It needs, I feel, to do quite a lot more. The public is still grossly under-represented on government committees and working parties, which function, for some reason, under the Official Secrets Act. The Food Advisory Committee, for instance, has eight members from the food industry as against one from consumer bodies. There is no good reason why this situation should continue and there is much to be said in the present climate of distrust for a free-standing agency, independent of government —a food standards agency, call it what you will —to oversee the whole area of safety. I do not believe that anything less will satisfy the public that the Government value the consumer as highly as the larger food groupings.
It would be good if some progress could be made on labelling. The present voluntary system is not resolving the existing confusion. The committee on medical aspects of food policy called for improvement some years ago and it is surely time the consumer had access, as of right, to knowledge about what he or she was eating. For allergy sufferers in particular, this is a matter of crucial importance. It was at least some consolation to hear from
778
the Minister that the Food Advisory Committee is taking this forward.
There could have been some encouragement in the Bill for organic farming. The demand for it is there from a public which has become rightly alarmed at the sheer artificiality of much of the food which appears in our shops. There is a school of thought —a very powerful one in scientific industrial circles —which holds that there is not much danger to health from additives and pesticides. It is largely the newness of environmental medicine as against the well-established discipline of microbiology which results in this perspective at present. It takes a long time for a new voice to be listened to, however right that voice may be.
I want to see something specific in the Bill about tighter controls on food additives. For all the good intentions of Clause 16(4) about restricting substances of no nutritional value, there is likely to be no more action under it than there was under the similar wording of the 1984 Act.
Finally, we have the spectre in the background —irradiation. I was puzzled to find no mention of this in the Bill until my attention was drawn to the subtly enabling provisions of Clause 16(1)(c). What a way to introduce the most contentious item in the whole package! In this I fully agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. What a way, in a Bill ostensibly about cleaning, tightening up and protecting the consumer, to let the industry do what it wants through the back door, because virtually no one else wants it. The Government understandably wish to keep a low profile on the matter and I too shall hold my fire at the present stage. There will be plenty to say later.
I shall close with a quotation from a report in the Independent of 19th September, which baffled me when I read it at the time and which baffles me still. It was about irradiated food, but that is not relevant to my point. It reads:
"The quality of irradiated food will take precedence over its safety and nutritional value, a leading scientist said yesterday".
Well, if quality has nothing to do with safety and nothing to do with nutritional value, what on earth has it to do with? The speaker was a professor, the head of an institute of food research. This says a lot about what is wrong with our food supply and I fear that this Bill, as drafted, does too little to put it right.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, which is by far the most important measure of consumer protection in relation to food that we have had in this country, and is probably the best in the world. No government have taken such radical, comprehensive and indeed, some would say, draconian steps before. As an ex-chairman of the National Consumer Council I was particularly delighted to note that a number of the NCC proposals had been incorporated into the Bill.
I am not one of those who has taken the view in the past that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food existed only for the benefit of farmers or that it put the interest of farmers first. As a former

779
farmer I have often thought that quite the reverse was true. Clearly we have in my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, someone who is determined to put food safety and the consumer first. That is something he made clear when, immediately upon being appointed, he insisted on seeing consumer representatives before anyone else. He has demonstrated his commitment and that of the Government with this Bill.
The Bill does not represent a panic reaction to the events of the past year. It has been under careful preparation for a good deal of time; building very substantially —as it does —on existing regulations, extending them and reinforcing them in a way that permits flexibility where necessary while maintaining that fine balance which needs to be achieved in regulations to protect consumers without undermining their interests by over-regulation. I believe that the British consumer is probably served by the best food industry in the world, with a wide choice of ever more sophisticated prepared and fresh foods available at a reasonable cost.
Of course the very variety and sophistication of the food available in Britain today brings with it inevitable dangers and penalties. It is quite true —as a number of noble Lords have claimed —that the number of cases of food poisoning has risen considerably and in many ways alarmingly over the past year or so. However, a number of factors must be considered in this context. More cases are being reported because the scares of the past year have resulted in much higher public perception about food poisoning, and that is a good thing. Also, we have a better surveillance system than most other countries so that cases are detected and collated much more quickly, and this continues to improve. That is also a good thing.
Then we have to remember that a number of the reported cases have arisen in food provided by institutions and catering establishments and not in the home. When one thinks of the proliferation of takeaway shops and of delicatessen counters, and of the sheer numbers of meat pies that are heated or half-heated both in the home and outside every day in this country; when one considers the widespread misuse or malfunction of microwave ovens and the sheer volume of food prepared and unprepared that leaves the shops in Britain today, it is not in the least surprising that food poisoning is on the increase.
I believe that there is no substitute for food which is bought fresh, cooked fresh and eaten fresh. But I fully accept that convenience food is here to stay. I am not critical of working mothers or mothers who work in the home with families to feed, who resort to convenience food. In their position I would probably do so myself. Although the figures for food poisoning are not surprising, they present a serious problem. I believe that the Government have fully recognised that with this Bill.
Over the past year there has been a rising crescendo of alarms about food safety. A number of them were very well founded and others were not. Alas, the growing problem has brought in its wake a proliferation of "experts", many of whom appear to
780
have had a vested interest in scaring people. They have sometimes been joined by politicians seeking to make party political capital but not of course in your Lordships' House. This has meant that the issue of food safety has become a political football and that is manifestly not in the consumers' interests. The hysterical reaction that we have witnessed has only served to confuse consumers and to make it more difficult for them to discriminate between what was said by those who genuinely wanted to warn them and those who merely wanted to frighten. In the end consumers have been confused by this cacophony to a point where everybody has lost credibility and nobody is heeded.
This Bill should restore confidence and credibility not just in relation to immediate problems, but for the foreseeable future. It will improve and strengthen the whole of food safety legislation. The duty to provide safe food is comprehensive and, with its greatly strengthened enforcement provisions, the Bill should eliminate or at the very least sound early warnings about possible contamination. Especially in the case of the swingeing fines in Clause 35, the Bill will be a very serious deterrent to the small minority who may have been careless in the past.
I believe that the Government have got the balance right in this provision. Of course people in the industry say that it goes too far and some in the consumer movement say that it does not go far enough. These two opposing views encourage me to think that the Government have probably got the balance just about right. The additional money provided in the Bill for surveillance and enforcement is obviously necessary because of the tough controls. But, like Oliver Twist, a number of noble Lords have asked for more.
When my noble friend winds up I hope that she will tell your Lordships' House that the Government will keep the matter under review and that if more money is necessary for this particular purpose that they will not hesitate to provide it. The best legislation in the world is of no use to consumers if it cannot be enforced. The emergency controls and the codes of practice about hygiene, together with the training for food handlers, are provisions that are all urgently needed and are particularly welcomed in this Bill.
However, consumers will still have to exercise the one attribute which I hope we all have; namely common sense. They will remain the final link in the food chain. The consumers' responsibility starts the moment the food leaves the shelves. They must transport it, store it and cook it sensibly and safely. They are entitled to expect the food that they take off the shelves to have been treated in that manner and that it is safe food. I hope that this Bill will reinforce their confidence regarding this issue.
Concern about irradiation has been expressed by a number of noble Lords. I believe that the alarm is unnecessary. The Bill quite rightly upholds the consumers' right to choose whether to buy irradiated food. This measure is not being brought in by the back door. Consumers should know whether the food has been irradiated and they must know for sure whether it has taken place. My noble friend will be aware that concern has been expressed both in

781
your Lordships' House and elsewhere about detection tests and their availability. It is not much good giving consumers the choice if they cannot be confident that the labelling is correct.
Therefore I hope that the centralised licensing and irradiation facilities, with detailed inspection and supervision, will apply to all food sold and described as irradiated. Meanwhile I hope that a detection method will be urgently sought because I am told that the discovery of such a method is not very far away. I believe that irradiation is of proven benefit. It has been used in other countries for a number of years. I approve of the Government's intention to impose it statutorily where no dangers in food exist.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who said that he would like everything relating to food regulations and consumers to be removed from MAFF and dealt with completely independently. Whereas in the past I had some sympathy with those views, the transformation that has taken place, the change in attitudes, together with the Bill and the new food safety directorate and consumer panel which are to be set up, satisfy my concern.
My only remaining doubt relates to the content of some animal and poultry feedstuffs. But that is something which I hope the consumer panel will be able to take up at an early opportunity. I have spoken at some length but I have not managed to cover even half the number of points that I wanted to make or to refer to in relation to this Bill. However, I shall not detain your Lordships' House much longer. This Bill shows that the Government mean business and have declared war on unsafe food wherever it is in the chain. It is a tribute to all those Ministers responsible that the Bill has been so widely welcomed both by industry and by the reputable consumer organisations. Of course, all have minor reservations and want some amendments. Some, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, want some fairly major amendments.
But it would be churlish for anyone to be less than wholehearted in acknowledging the significance of the measure and the severity of the penalities to be imposed. It underlines the determination of the Government to defend the health and safety of consumers. I congratulate the Minister of State on its introduction and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through both Houses.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes who is an expert in this matter. She knows a great deal about the subject. She has made a very encouraging and interesting speech. When I went to collect my newspapers in Scotland yesterday morning I remarked that I was on the way south to take part in the debate regarding the Bill on food safety. The lady in the newsagents said: "Well, just tell them that it does not matter too much what they do as long as they do not put the prices up too much".
Had there been time for discussion I am sure that that lady would appear as concerned for the safety of food and the food for her family as everyone else.
782
But she put her finger on a very important point. In considering this Bill we have to bear in mind all the time as the Government have had to bear in mind in drafting it, who has to pay for whatever Parliament decides. Ultimately it is the lady in the newsagent and all the other consumers. All the extra costs that the Bill may add to ensure that food is safe will ultimately be added to the price of food on the supermarket shelf. I point that out especially to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who wants so much more than is in the Bill. He should bear in mind how much some of what he wants would cost.
In the explanatory section of the White Paper, the Government point out that responsibility for the safety of food has to be shared between government, producers, food manufacturers, retailers and consumers themselves. The Bill makes this very plain. It proposes a framework which will make it necessary and possible in a practical way for all who share responsibility for the safety of the food we eat to operate more conscientiously and more effectively in a manner that can be constantly updated to meet new problems as they arise. It also allows for European Community legislation, as it arises, to be incorporated into our national law. That is a good thing too.
It is good, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said in an interesting speech, that the proposed framework has been widely welcomed in principle and is not controversial to many consumer and retailing bodies. They agree that the framework is right. It is good too that food safety arrangements, which have hitherto been separate in Scotland, should be brought together in United Kingdom legislation. Much of the food produced or manufactured on one side of the Border is sold on the other side and vice versa. Common arrangements are provided for in the Bill. That is highly desirable. I am extremely glad that local authorities will continue to have a major role in the enforcement of the arrangements and that it is intended that their ability to do the job should be considerably strengthened. Local inspections by local officers overseen by local councillors answerable to local consumers is undoubtedly the best way so long as enforcement can be made more even across the country. The Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
The clear definition of what is required by the defining of a new offence is also particularly welcomed. If one knows what one cannot do, it is easier to know what one can do. It is good that inspectors will have the right to carry out spot checks throughout the system so that food still in the factory and in supermarket warehouses, as well as food for sale on shop shelves, can if necessary be condemned and seized or withdrawn. It is encouraging that those representing the retailers accept the stringent requirements this places upon their members.
It is right too that the penalties for committing an offence should be great enough to be a strong deterrent. The proposed maximum fine in a magistrates' court in England and Wales of £20,000 with a possible six months' imprisonment —the fine is, I believe, 10 times the present maximum —and the possibility on indictment of an unlimited fine

783
and up to two years imprisonment are heavy penalties indeed. It seems only appropriate that the scope for matters which can be included by way of defence if one is accused of an offence should be suitably updated as well. The Bill seeks to do this in its provision on due diligence. This is right, but as several noble Lords have asked, how will people know precisely what "due diligence" involves? There must be a system of codes of practice to assist in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and other noble Lords protested that there is so much scope in the Bill for government regulation. It may be overdone here and there, but I believe it is right that in this Bill central government should be able to bring forward regulations and change and update them from time to time to establish detailed safety measures made necessary, for example, by new technology in manufacturing and storage, by new treatments for farm animals and produce, by new forms of food and by other innovations that may come along. Parliament is wary of governments seeking unnecessary powers of regulation, and rightly so. But in the case of food safety, where constant vigilance, flexibility and swiftness of response are so important, the Bill's way is the best one.
I have set out those aspects of the Bill which I particularly welcome. Perhaps I may now ask my noble friend four questions on matters which concern me. The first two relate to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, questioned the degree of consultation the Government have carried out with organisations in Scotland and with Scottish local authorities. Can my noble friend tell the House precisely what consultation there has been in Scotland? Secondly, page iv of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
"The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year … This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement".
Does this £30 million include the cost to local authorities in Scotland? If so, what proportion of that can they look forward to receiving? If not, what sum will they receive from the Scottish Office in their rate support grant settlement?
My third question relates to the importance of arriving at common practices and fairness across the country in the ways local authorities enforce food safety law. Will there be a system of recommended practice for local authorities to follow in their enforcement? If there is, can we see that system before the Committee stage? If we cannot, it will be difficult to know whether the system is fair and even, which is what people want.
My fourth question concerns the education of the public—of everybody who buys, stores and cooks food. My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes referred to this point. The new arrangements proposed in the Bill will be effective only if food is well bought by the customer, well stored at home and properly cooked. New information is constantly arriving. It is difficult for the public to keep up. Only this morning advice was being given on the radio about correct cooking procedures in microwave ovens. People were told that if the microwave does
784
not heat the food evenly they should move it about while they are cooking it. I had never heard that before. I do not have a microwave, but perhaps I should have known. It is important to know that. Do the Government mean to persist in their campaign to make consumers more aware of what to look for when shopping for food, of how to store it safely and of how to cook it safely? Some excellent information booklets have been produced. Do the Government intend to continue to make such material available?
The Bill as a whole is well thought out and creates a framework for all concerned to work together in partnership for the safety of our food. There are detailed aspects at which we shall want to look. I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the control of quality on the farm. I am sure he knows better than I do that under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 farmers are obliged to supply produce of quality suitable for human consumption. They can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. The Food and Environment Protection Act gives the Government powers to limit the distribution of agricultural produce. We have had recent experience of that.
The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Consumer Protection Act should cover everyone—and I assume he meant primary producers as well—would have problems, many of which have previously been explored in this House. I was not present in the Chamber when these matters were discussed but I must point out to the noble Lord that if, for example, a load of grain is found to be faulty soon after it has left the farm and while it is still in one batch, it can be returned. But once grain and other farm produce arrive at the manufacturers they are then all mixed together and therefore it becomes most difficult to trace back any faults. Moreover, many products are liable to deteriorate because of the weather; for example, potatoes will deteriorate if there is frost on the road between the farm and their ultimate destination. Such a situation is completely outside the control of the farmer, and, indeed, there are many problems in this respect. However, I am sure that we shall find ourselves discussing such matters in Committee.
As we go through the Bill we must remember all the time that whatever we decide must be paid for by those people like the lady I met in the newsagents yesterday and all the other consumers. I hope that your Lordships will bear that factor in mind. I also hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading this evening.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like to join the general welcome given to the Bill by my noble friend Lady Stedman, and I think I can say by all other noble Lords. It is essentially a good and necessary Bill, although as many noble Lords pointed out there is scope for improvement. Many of the proposed improvements have already been dealt with and I hope that I shall not be thought of as being too repetitive if I make further mention of some of them. However, I shall approach the matter in a somewhat different way to that of other noble Lords.

785
I suggest to your Lordships that while food is obviously an essential element of life, there is also an element of enjoyment in it to many if not to all of us. However, sources of danger are present. Those sources can be roughly divided into four sections.
The first source of danger is on the farm. Such farm dangers have for many years been subject to considerable regulation —for example, the inspection of milk at the dairy; the inspection of meat at the slaughterhouse, and so on —and we should not blind ourselves to the very great success which has followed on from the legislation of early days. After all, it is not so many years ago that tuberculosis was a source of grave danger for consumers of milk. However, that danger has now completely disappeared as has the danger from brucellosis. Moreover, many diseases following upon the ingestion of unsuitable meat —such as, those caused by tapeworms, helminth diseases of different kinds and other diseases —have been, to all intents and purposes, abolished. That fact must be put to the credit of our present system which was introduced many years ago of inspection on the farm and at the place of first handling; that is, the slaughterhouse, the creameries, and so on.
However, more recently a new source of danger has arisen mainly, although not solely, from salmonella infection. This is a much more difficult problem to contend with and one which cannot be coped with by inspection. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, slightly exaggerated the responsibility of farmers and primary producers for the spread of disease.
However, because of the presence of salmonella and other similar diseases, I accept that there should be a greater concentration on the care exercised in relation to the ingredients which are put into the production of food on the farm. This process should be subject to very much more control than it has been in the past. Specifically, it is quite clear that feeding stuffs and their ingredients, whether contaminated with metals, with bacteria or with other noxious organisms, must be inspected, controlled and prevented from being used by, I think in all cases, the innocent user of them; namely, the farmer. In my view, the Bill could well be strengthened in that particular respect.
The second source of danger, which takes place during the general division of food in its movement from the producer to the kitchen, is in the processing. There are already some strict controls in the matter. However, over the past decades there has been a great increase in the processing of food. No longer does food move direct from the cow to the churn, to the doorstep and then to the cup of tea; it now goes through creameries and other processes of which your Lordships are aware. Further, no longer is the beast slaughtered in the local slaughterhouse, put on the slab in the butcher's shop, bought by the housewife and then cooked and served as the Sunday joint. Again, the meat goes through a much longer process.
Then there is a whole range of manufactured foods which quite rightly demands a far greater rate of control and inspection than was the case 20, 40 or
786
even 60 years ago. The Bill strengthens the control in that respect, but then the somewhat controversial question of irradiation arises. Quite clearly there is a difference of opinion on all sides of the House in the matter. I have not had the benefit of seeing the evidence given to Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. Therefore I speak without the depth of his knowledge. But my instinct is that despite the fact that irradiation has been successfully and safely used, so far as we know, in other countries including some in the Community, there are still question marks hanging over this method. It is all very well to say, "Leave it to the consumer, so long as the consumer knows that the food has been irradiated the choice is there".
In my view in a matter as complex and complicated as irradiation the consumer needs more than a label which says, "This product has been irradiated". We must know more about what, if any, are the potential risks arising from irradiated food products. We do not really need to know about the safety of the product because we can take that for granted —indeed, I am certainly prepared to do so—but we do need to know what the effect will be on the product when all the noxious bacteria have been killed by irradiation should it be reinfected by some extraneous pathogens. Therefore I urge caution in the use of irradiation. I would rather have more knowledge about the matter than appears to be the case at present before advocating its use.
The third area in the food chain about which I wish to speak is the retail outlet. There is a growing risk in this respect largely because of the growing use of convenience foods. These are foods which are already prepared when they reach the retail outlet. They are attractively packaged and exhibited for sale. They can be taken home and either eaten at once, which is relatively safe, or they can be stored in a refrigerator and eaten within a few days or, in certain cases, within a few weeks. There is obviously need for great control because the risk of contaminating healthy, clean, bacteria-free food in retail shops is manifestly considerable. There is risk of contamination from the bacteria which are present in the air and which descend upon the food and from handling by customers or staff whose hands are not sterile. None of us has sterile hands. There is a risk of air contamination merely from people speaking, sneezing and breathing. All those factors add to the risk of food contamination.
It is good to see that the Bill talks about increasing the education of those who handle food. I hope that the accent will be far more on food handlers than food inspectors. I accept that the food inspectors are already sufficiently well trained in their job, although more of them may well be needed. The need for food hygiene must be brought home to those who own, operate and work in retail outlets and who handle food. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not in his place, but another of his family will speak in due course. We need have no doubts about standards of hygiene in such outlets, but there are many far smaller outlets where it is harder to enforce such high standards. There should be more

787
concentration than at present on training people in such retail outlets in all aspects of hygiene.
The fourth aspect of the food chain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes so rightly pointed out, is in the home itself. Even though the food may, and probably does, come into the kitchen in a healthy and hygienic manner, by the time it has been put on the kitchen table, left out of the refrigerator for a while, put back into it and brought out again, not eaten entirely, put back and consumed a week later, there is a real risk of food poisoning. One cannot obviously inspect private kitchens, but there should be a greater publicity effort to inform the housewife, or the househusband, of the importance of elementary hygiene when looking after convenience foods. It does not matter with the joint of beef which goes into the oven, because any bugs will be killed by cooking that, but pates and other foods which need no cooking are wonderful feeding grounds for pathogenic bacteria and they must be treated, if not with as high a degree of caution as shown in a hospital laboratory, at least with great respect.
I repeat that this is a useful Bill. By the time it has passed through Committee, it will be an extremely good Bill, and I wish it well.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for outlining and explaining the purposes of the Bill. I welcome the Bill and I am glad that it has been given a place this Session. The main consultative document was issued in 1984. There will no doubt be further technological changes in the fields affected but we should not have to wait any longer before considering primary legislation.
The Government seek in Clauses 16 to 18 powers with which they can meet developments with subordinate legislation. The consumer should benefit from what is proposed. I applaud the provisions for monitoring and enforcing regulations and the £30 million a year which is allocated for the additional resources needed.
This afternoon in what I hope will be a short speech I intend to concentrate on the increasing menace of food poisoning, which others have already mentioned. The number of recorded cases multiplied by three between 1982 and 1986. Other figures were given earlier in the debate but they all come to the same general conclusion of an increase of that order.
We are all aware from press reports and parliamentary Statements of outbreaks of salmonella and listeria. Those and other bacteria have been around for years and yet they have caused much more illness and distress in the 1980s than earlier. That may seem strange at a time when medical science has virtually eliminated the scourges of diphtheria, polio and other such diseases in human beings.
Food poisoning has sometimes been a subject of jokes, usually connected with eating favourite dishes out of season and before the wide distribution of deep freeze equipment. It is no longer a joke. Not
788
only is it acutely incommoding, it can be dangerous. The consumer is entitled to be protected from it. Food poisoning should be forced to retreat rather than to advance at this stage of man's development and knowledge. In that connection I was asking Questions at Question Times which your Lordships will remember in the early part of this year about the irradiation of food. I was not commending one argument or the other but asking for information and knowledge about the Government's attitude.
The irradiartion of food is a process which kills unfriendly bacteria. I asked whether it damaged food and whether it could be misused to preserve the appearance of food beyond its proper shelf life. Since then, my inquiries have brought me to the conclusion that there is little, if any, danger and that it has a considerable advantage by destroying bacteria in certain foodstuffs.
It is sensible to take powers now in the Food Safety Bill to allow irradiation to be introduced, although as I shall indicate I agree with others that this should be done with caution. I gladly noted the Government Statement made on 21st June in another place which said that it was their intention to take those powers. Clearly the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who made a thoughtful speech dealing with that subject, had missed that Statement because it was made clear to us that the Government were going to take powers to allow food irradiation in this country. That was stated in a press release on 21st June.
Irradiation is already legal here for hospital patients who need a sterile diet, for example, after major abdominal surgery, and it does no harm to them. Should not everyone be able to benefit from that service made available by modern science if they wish to? And the wish is the important point which the Government make in their proposals.
I understand that the Government propose to make irradiation legal under powers provided in Clauses 16 to 18, while ensuring that irradiated food must be clearly labelled and need never be bought or consumed by anyone who is opposed to or uncertain about it.
For my part I shall have no hesitation in opting for irradiated food to avoid the horrors of food poisoning. I must admit that up till now I have suffered it only when I have been abroad. But that was because I was fortunate in not eating anything at a certain reception in London some years ago and also in not partaking of certain meals in your Lordships' refreshment department at another period much closer to us. Colleagues and others were inconveniently and in some cases seriously ill with salmonella poisoning on both those occasions.
Some consumers will doubtedless be suspicious of the word "irradiation", anxious about a possible connection with radioactivity or radiation. However, they are both part of ordinary life, for example, in natural surroundings and hospital radiotherapy. I am satisfied that there need be no danger in irradiated food properly controlled. It should be introduced gradually and in time I believe that it will become more widely accepted. With familiarity more people will opt for safety from the incapacitating and painful tummy upsets which they might otherwise have to experience.

789
The World Health Organisation has emphasised the safety of irradiation: 35 countries have permitted it, including the United States and three members of the EC. In about 20 of those countries it is already being practised. I suggest that the introduction, after the enabling power has been taken, should be carefully prepared. For example, there must be a list of specified foods and only those can be irradiated. There should be clear instructions for handling and sorting.
I was not on the sub-committee so I do not know what will be in the report to which my noble friend Lord Middleton referred earlier this evening. But I agree with him that only a few items need to be designated in the introduction and the early years of irradiation, with herbs and spices being the obvious first candidates.
More generally, the Bill gives the Government wide powers to make regulations. I have commented on the irradiation point because it is something in which I have been involved in your Lordships' House during the past months. The Government have already indicated that their intentions are to enable irradiation to be allowed. I have the impression that the food and farming industries are concerned that little is yet known about the Government's intentions in other areas. I hope that the intentions will be announced in plenty of time. My noble friend indicated that there was a consultative document on one subject which was being issued today. However, as the Bill proceeds I trust that it will be announced what subjects will be covered by the regulations and what the Government's intentions are in order to allow enough time for consultation with those most concerned.
The Bill brings together the law in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as United Kingdom legislation. This is sensible from the point of view of clarity and for the convenience and organisation of the industries concerned and the monitoring agencies.
The food which we eat is broadly the same throughout the United Kingdom although there are perhaps the exceptions of haggis and one or two national dishes like that. I say in passing that haggis has been a favourite of mine since I was a small boy. It clearly makes sense not to have boundaries where monitoring, inspection and legislation are concerned.
Clause 4 sets out the functions of the various Ministers. I do not expect an answer today but I draw attention to the fact that this may be complicated. Your Lordships will know the formula that in legislation the term "Secretary of State" appearing in the singular covers any Secretary of State so that any Secretary of State can step in and do what is in the Act of Parliament concerned.
However, historically the Minister of Agriculture remains "Minister". That clearly needed some attention. Then there are the present responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for agriculture and fisheries; he is the Minister for them in Scotland. But I do not think he is the Minister for food. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us this when she replies.
790
The Department of Health and the Secretary of State for Health are responsible for health in England. Everything that the Department of Health does in England is done by the Home and Health Department of the Scottish Office in Scotland. Their responsibilities are quite separate. Thus I think that as the Bill proceeds we shall need clarification of whether Ministers will be acting in their own areas of responsibility, geographically and functionally, and whether they will act jointly at other times.
I give the Bill a welcome, as I said at the beginning, and I hope that some of these points will be answered, if not today then at a later stage.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hives: My Lords, I come fairly well down the list of speakers and inevitably some of my points will have been made. I hope that with its usual generosity the House will excuse me if I make the same points again.
Public confidence in the food we eat is of paramount importance. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the introduction by the Government of the new Food Safety Bill. It will reassure the public for them to see that the Government take the whole food safety issue as seriously as they do. In her comprehensive introduction to this Second Reading debate, my noble friend demonstrated not only the scope of the Bill and the subsequent regulations but also the considerable flexibility which has been built into it. This will allow the Government and the enforcement authorities to protect the public better and to clamp down hard on the few who do not do the job properly and endanger public health.
In the White Paper Food Safety—Protecting the Consumer the Government set out the current arrangements and identified the areas where change was necessary. Now with this Bill they will strengthen and update existing procedures, demonstrating a commitment to the highest possible standards of consumer practice.
The public needs to have confidence in the systems designed to protect them. They need to know that action is taken when justified by the facts, not mere emotion. Of course there is considerable media interest in food safety issues, but if one believed everything written in newspapers none of us would be able to eat any of the things which form part of our normal diet. The reality is very different. Our food is not only safer than it was in days gone by; it is also fresher, of higher quality and in many cases tastier. I wonder how many noble Lords would care to swap their diet today with that of the 1950s and 1960s. It is not the Government's job to tell people what to eat. It is however important that our producers satisfy consumer demand.
In the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I remind noble Lords also that if they went down to Earls Court today to the Royal Smithfield Show they would see the best of all our meat-producing livestock. If we compare them with the animals with which I started, say, 50 years ago, we would see that they are smaller, leaner and entirely different in conformation, all because of the response to

791
consumer demand. Consumer demand has entirely altered the shape of the animals today.
Thanks to our farmers we live in a world of plenty. Shortage has turned to surplus. Where once there was a demand to produce more, now we are accused of producing too much. In these circumstances many people may start to question the contribution of farmers to society. However, to increase production is the easy part; to slow it down or to cease is far more difficult as we are now finding out. The critics of farmers are wholly wrong to suggest that they do not care about food quality and safety. They are now well aware of the need to maintain consumer confidence in their products. Farmers and the rest of the food industry must work together to restore the confidence of shoppers in their products.
This country is one of the world leaders when it comes to the quality and indeed the wholesomeness and safety of food produced on our farms. However more has to be done. As consumers' expectations rise, farmers and the food industry have to take them into their confidence as well as satisfy their demand for healthy, wholesome food. That is why farmers and the food industry will welcome the Food Safety Bill. For those who do the job properly this Bill will help protect them from unfair criticism. But it will increase the controls and, most importantly, the penalties on those who break the rules and in so doing endanger the health of their customers.
Many of the farmers I know are concerned that they are misunderstood by the media and blamed unfairly for food contamination. However, I must urge producers not to fall into the trap of complacency. There are areas where we can do more to protect the consumer and restore confidence in our products. As producers at the start of the food chain, we must be seen to do so.
I am delighted that the Government are taking the steps outlined in the Bill to provide a revised framework for food law in the 1990s. This Bill will enable legislators and enforcement officers to cope with modern production methods and the new techniques being used by the food industry. It will also enable Ministers to respond to changes in European Community food law. But above all it will help restore consumer confidence.
Ministers have to put food safety first. We must not forget how much our industry has changed in recent years. No longer is the food industry made up of the local concerns which were the norm in earlier decades, where individuals served their local communities. It is now in many respects a multinational industry. Many companies, even quite small ones, send their products all over the world. Food law and its enforcement have to encompass this wider horizon and the length of the distribution chain.
I am delighted to see that the Bill takes account of the needs of the food industry in at least three ways. It will enable the Government to ensure that national and local enforcement authorities work closely together to maximise protection for the consumer. It will encourage the setting of uniform standards for food safety enforcement so that every
792
local authority requires the same conditions in similar factories around the country. Further, the Bill will ensure that we do not impose an unnecessary burden on our food industry. We must remember that our food manufacturers need to compete in the 1990s with their counterparts in the Community and elsewhere.
This is a far-reaching and flexible Bill. It deals firmly with the problems faced by the food industry. It enhances consumer protection, but above all it builds on and strengthens a food safety regime which is already among the best in the world.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I welcome certainly the stated intentions of the Bill. However, I think it is worth looking at the underlying reasons why today in an affluent society when so much is understood about man and his environment, we have this problem of an increasing incidence of food-transmitted disease, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
The major epidemic food and water borne diseases of the past such as typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera and dysentery have been largely eliminated. That is because of our effective and plentiful clean water supply and sewerage systems built up carefully within the public sector over the past century. However, because of under-investment the sewerage and water industries are only just holding their own, and I fear that we shall have to pay heavily for their modernisation. Individual consumers will pay for that when the water industry is in the private sector. That is in addition to the gift taxpayers are giving to shareholders in the current sell-off of the water industry. Incidentally, as my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, the Bill does not cover water safety as I feel it should, despite the recent problems of cryptosporidium in Oxford and aluminium in Cornwall.
Our present problems of food poisoning and adulteration of food and drink whether this is accidental or on purpose, arise from the intensification of food production, processing and distribution which are the result of the industrial society in which we live. That society is built on maximising profit and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, pointed out, convenience.
As my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg said, problems arise at every stage from animal rearing to slaughter and in preparation, processing, packaging and storage, both before and after distribution. The British Veterinary Association stated in a paper circulated for discussion by its council:
"Unfortunately the diseases of intensivism are sometimes more difficult to detect and control".
I am sure the Bill is an improvement on its complex predecessors. Like my noble friend, I suggest however that it concentrates too much on the later stages of the food chain and not enough on the early stages, particularly on the farm. I shall repeat a remark which is now famous:
"Most of the egg production in this country is infected with salmonella".
I cannot quite recollect who said that originally. It may not be strictly true. I believe that much debate

793
turns on two words "much" or "most" and "infected" or "affected". I am not sure which words were intended to be used in the remark when it was first made.
Can Clause 20, which enables the enforcement authority to bypass an immediate offender in order to prosecute the real offender be used in the case of salmonella in eggs? Who is the so-called real offender? Is it the retailer, the egg wholesaler, the poultry farmer or the feedstuff producer? The document of the British Veterinary Association to which I have already referred states:
"It is regular practice to recycle slaughterhouse waste back into livestock production via feed, after rendering or other processing. Even chicken house wastes (including droppings) can be incorporated into cattle feed to provide a cheap source of nitrogen. The scientific question is whether the risk of transmission of disease-causing organisms by this route can be eliminated in the feed mill…The recycling of waste food as animal feed must continue to be closely controlled".
I can see no clause in this Bill to cover this recommendation from the British Veterinary Association. I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply can say whether there is other legislation that covers this important area. If so, why is it not incorporated in this Bill? I believe, for instance, that there is an order called the Protein Feedstuffs Processing Order. I do not see it among the list of orders or previous legislation incorporated in the Bill.
With regard to meat inspection, there are apparently two standards, with a higher level —among other things, requiring veterinary supervision —for meat that is for export to the EC. Three is a lower standard for meat that is to be consumed in the United Kingdom. This is surely an unsatisfactory situation. I gather that the Minister himself feels that the higher standard should, and will, apply to all meat plants. Is this so? I cannot see it in the Bill. Clause 17, concerning the enforcement of community provisions, does not really cover the problem.
Other noble Lords have commented on the need for licensing of premises, not merely registration. I hope that the accent on registration rather than licensing is not solely one of economy, or because of a lack of trained staff to inspect licensed premises. The cost of the licence could, at least in part, cover the cost of any additional staff and training that is necessary to upgrade registration to licensing.
I very much welcome the section on the financial effects of the Bill. If £30 million is spent on the salaries of trained inspectors —I am not sure what their salaries are, but let us say that they are £15,000 per annum —that could result in 2,000 extra staff. But new staff will need to be trained, and there are other administrative expenses. I should be grateful for slightly more detail from the noble Baroness as to how this £30 million is going to be spent.
Like many other noble Lords, and a long list of highly-reputable consumer organisations, I am sorry that the Bill contains no specific references to irradiation, and leaves that aspect to subsequent regulation. I do not feel that that gives Parliament adequate control in a matter which is of great public concern. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can
794
say how near we are to developing an easily-applied test to check whether food has been irradiated? The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, mentioned that point; but it would be nice to know how near we are to having a test readily available.
Last but not least, I am sorry that the Bill does not mention the nutritional quality of food at all. Ultimately that is very much a part of safety. There is increasing evidence that chronic diseases, particularly atheroscelerosis and coronary heart disease, depend on diet. It is of vital importance for consumers to know the content of what they are eating.
I know that the question of food labelling for nutritional content has very much a European dimension. However, I feel that this country has an important part to play in achieving a code that is meaningful for heart disease prevention. This is where we could, and should, play a stronger lead role in Europe. To include satisfactory labelling in United Kingdom legislation, which would reduce blood cholesterol and hence coronary heart disease, would help to pull Europe in the right direction. We have a useful framework in this Bill. I am sure with the amendments that I hope will be agreed in this House, the Bill is going to leave this House in even better shape.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I have to declare an interest because I am advised with regard to this Bill by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, which I regularly advise myself. I am also advised by the Food and Drink Federation. Before I go on, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the Food and Drink Federation does not only represent the large companies. Its membership consists of other trade associations like the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, which has a wide-ranging membership. Indeed on its council it has at least four small companies. Therefore, it is not right to say that the FDF represents only the large companies.
Those representative bodies in the food manufacturing industry entirely support the objectives of the Food Safety Bill, as so ably explained to us by my noble friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On various occasions I have suggested that the title of that Ministry should be changed to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Food is obviously so much more important, particularly when we have a Bill such as this. The food manufacturing industry trade associations support the intention to give added powers to enforcement authorities, and to give added resources to local authorities to ensure that, as far as practicable, food eaten by the public is wholly safe. I believe that this Bill goes a long way to achieving those objectives.
There were just two points raised by noble Lords that I should like to mention before I get to the main part of my speech. One is irradiation. My noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Campbell of Croy explained that matter so well and so fully that I feel that all that needs to be said has been said. However,

795
I hope that the great British public is not conned into thinking that this is some hideous new scientific device that is all about atomic warfare, and not about people. When it comes through I hope that we shall find a rational viewpoint as well.
The other point that I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will be able to pick up is that raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about whether Clause 2(2) will mean that all charity fund-raising events will have to stop providing small eats at the end of their parties. I often find when I go to such events that it is about the only food that I get. Therefore if that is a problem, I hope that we take strong steps to make it practicable for organisations of that sort to go on feeding people, because in my experience they certainly do not poison one.
There are in fact three aspects of the Bill that give me cause for concern. Some of them have been mentioned by other noble Lords, and I shall endeavour to be quick in raising them. One, which was perhaps not raised is that there is a lack of clarity in certain important clauses. That is the first point. The second point is the extreme use —and many people have talked about this —of order-making powers given to the Minister. The third point has also been mentioned, but not perhaps in this particular way. I have doubts about the speed with which the trading standards officers and environmental health officers can receive the necessary extra training in all aspects of food technology in order to perform their new tasks effectively and fairly under the Bill.
The clarity of clauses is a matter for probing at a later stage of the Bill. However, by way of example, the definition of "injury" in Clause 7(3) gives grounds for concern. I shall be seeking clarification of that as well as, for other reasons, the definition of "food source" in Clause 1(3). Those two points need clarification.
Turning now to order-making powers, I must say at the outset that I accept the fact that, in seeking to ensure safety of a product for which there are many, varied and ever-changing methods of creation and processing, the Government must have many powers to alter legislation quickly to meet changes in any threats to food safety. I also noted that my noble friend the Minister of State undertook to consult in framing the necessary regulations. I welcome that.
However, there are in the Bill order-making powers for a variety of different kinds of regulations, some of which potentially require much greater urgency than others. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, we are told in Clause 48(2) that all orders under the Act should be subject to the negative procedure. If we look at Clause 2(1)(b) we find that the providers of food can be completely sewn up by regulations. As I read Clause 2(1)(b), the Minister could, by regulation, provide for him to sue a consumer for not cooking his or her food properly. The Government might make a great deal of money that way, especially if they took note of what was said by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. However, to be serious, I suggest to noble Lords that
796
catch-all regulation powers such as Clause 2(1)(b) and powers which may have serious financial implications but which do not require urgent introduction, such as those under Clause 19(b), should be handled by the affirmative procedure.
Mentioning possible financial implications reminds me that there are various provisions in the Bill, or possibly regulations introduced under the terms of the Bill, which could cost food producers and/or retailers a great deal of money. Tightening of the licensing provision, which the Consumers' Association favours, is one such possible example. If that happens, it must be understood that the cost of such provisions will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, if he had stayed to listen to my speech as I think the rules require, that in passing the costs on to the consumer manufacturers are not necessarily maximising profit or even aiming to maximise profit. They are just aiming to make a profit in order to survive and invest in their business. Using emotive phrases such as "maximising profit" reveals a lack of trust of manufacturers or businessmen generally which sadly reflects itself on the Benches opposite.
I know why the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is absent, but I am sorry that he is not here to listen to what I have to say. I was surprised when I heard his speech. I have always been a little surprised that he is on the Benches opposite because I thought that he had too much common sense for that. There are other noble Lords, one of whom I can see, whom I would also categorise as having too much common sense to be on the Benches opposite, but that is another subject. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, forgets that food processors are much disciplined by the need to have an exemplary reputation for safe food production. If they do not have such a reputation, they will not survive in business. They do not require a great number of little men watching them to see whether they are following the processes which this Act of Parliament or any other will impose upon them. When we come to the Committee stage, it will be important for noble Lords on the Benches opposite to forget their past prejudices and move into the modern world.
I turn now to my third matter of concern; namely whether in the short term food authorities will be able to deploy such well trained food technologists to implement the provisions of the Bill effectively and fairly. It is vital that the enforcement officers understand what to look into in inspecting all kinds of premises from large processing factories to small shops or restaurants. Not only is that necesary for ensuring food safety, but also for gaining the confidence of all types of people involved in the food business. Industry itself has had difficulty in recruiting sufficient food technologists over many years. If some jolly good ones are provided in the inspection service, industry may well poach them in order to build up its own strength to meet the Bill's requirements. Suffice it to say, I expect that the Government will have to consider allocating much more than the £30 million referred to in the explanatory memorandum in order to ensure that the Bill is properly effective.

797
Having indicated the areas into which I shall probe at later stages of the Bill, I should like nonetheless to wish it and my noble friend the Minister of State well in the process.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, food is something that is consumed by all of us from the cradle to the grave and this is therefore a Bill of the utmost importance. I shall not go into the protection side of it because, frankly, not being a scientist, I do not understand it.
However, I want to deal with one or two basic issues in the Bill, starting with the definition in Clause 1 which states that:
"'business' includes the undertaking of a canteen, club, school, hospital or institution".
There appears to be no mention of a restaurant or hotel in Clause 1. I do not have to declare an interest because I have no financial involvement in hotels, although members of my family are engaged in the hotel and catering industry, both literally in hotels and in what is known as the pub trade. Presumably all those establishments will be subjected, and quite rightly so, to the provisions of the Bill.
I have suffered from food poisoning, not in this House, but in the Army. During my national service I was poisoned by, of all things, verdigris, and by blown salmon and porridge which had gone off. Suffice it to say, I was on my back for three weeks, so I know what food poisoning is like. That was 43 years ago and it was not then called salmonella or listeria. So far as I know, it was just termed "food poisoning". Much progress with food technology has since been made, but at that time fast foods were not so much in existence as they are now. It is clearly fast foods which are the most dangerous so far as concerns infection.
I am particularly interested in Clause 23, which relates to the training of those who will have to operate the Bill, whether they be environmental health officers or other officials whatever title they may have. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether she is satisfied that there are enough such people and whether their skills are sufficient to cope with the requirements of the Bill. I hope that the answer will be in the affirmative, because the main thrust of the Bill is enforcement, whether at local authority level, in a hospital or canteen or elsewhere.
Much of course comes down to common sense. The Which? report of March 1989 mentions the disturbing increase in the number of recorded cases of food poisoning: in 1987 there were 30,000; in 1988 there were 41,000. It would be interesting to have those figures broken down to find out how many of those poisoning cases took place in the home and whether they were caused by microwaves; or whether they took place in restaurants, or indeed wine bars or cafés.
One area which has always frightened me is that of the delicatessen where there are exposed various types of salad consisting of potatoes and such things. Particularly during the summer —and we had a very hot summer this year —who knows how much listeria
798
or whatever is conveyed in such food? I very much hope that the Bill will take a long, hard look at premises of that kind. I believe that delicatessen food is one of the main sources of food poisoning.
I welcome very much, as I am sure does the whole House, the position on Crown immunity, particularly as regards hospitals. However, there are disturbing implications in some of our very large hospitals because the kitchens may be very old and certain food storage areas may leave much to be desired. Ventilation may be bad. One does not know how the food is stored in the refrigerators and whether guidelines are kept. I hope that, when this Bill becomes law, attention will be devoted in particular to long-stay hospitals, where, unlike general hospitals, there are patients who stay for many years. It is very important that both staff and patients are fed not only properly but safely.
This is a Bill to be welcomed. It has been needed for a very long time. My only concern is whether there are enough environmental health officers and others to enforce it. In the meantime it certainly merits a Second Reading.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, first I must apologise for the fact that I was not able to be present for the earlier part of this debate. I was making what I hope has been a contribution to food safety by opening a new supermarket at Whitley Bay and visiting a number of stores in the Newcastle area. I was therefore unable to be present until a short time ago.
I should also declare an interest, in that I am chairman of the country's largest food retailer, J. Sainsbury plc. Having been in the food trade for nearly 40 years I have seen great change and over many years have studied the problems of food distribution and food processing both in this country and overseas. I may add that I visit well over 100 food stores every year. I must therefore assure the House that my belief is that the standards of food safety and overall food hygiene in this country are higher than they have ever been and compare most favourably with the standards to be found abroad, including in the United States, where our company now also trades. I agreed with the Minister of Agriculture when, at a recent conference, he said that Britain's food has never been safer than it is today.
Having said that, I should like to make three points. First, it is right that the Government recognise that there has been a serious increase in the number of cases of food poisoning, which is a phenomenon to be found in all those countries which have meaningful statistics to compare. Secondly, it is a fact that changing consumer tastes and requirements in convenience foods present new hazards if the highest standards of food hygiene are not maintained. Thirdly, it must be right and in the national interest that food standards are further raised and that practical steps are taken which reduce the risks of food poisoning occurring. For those and indeed other reasons I welcome the Bill that is before us today. I believe that it will strengthen existing

799
food law and help ensure the adoption of what is already best practice in the industry. In my view it is a practical measure that is in the interests of the consumer.
As has often been said, the issue of food safety is an emotive one and has caused the media to create unnecessary alarm by exaggerated and inaccurate reports. Those with the most alarmist views are given the greatest coverage. The considered judgment of responsible scientists makes a less good and a less sensational story and their views often go unreported.
If food safety issues are emotive, so too is the subject of food irradiation. I believe that it is right for it to be permitted, subject of course to the most rigorous regulation and control. That is for the simple reason that the great weight of international scientific opinion believes it to be safe. Many governments in the world have been persuaded by that opinion and also believe that it is a technique which, if properly used, can reduce the risk of food contamination for some products more effectively than can alternative means.
I also believe that the consumer rules. The Government may permit food irradiation but whether or not any food is irradiated depends ultimately on the consumer. The consumer should have the right of choice, given current scientific opinion. But no food manufacturer and no retailer will sell irradiated food unless he or she finds that there is consumer demand and consumer advantage. I can very well understand that many people will not wish any food that they buy to be irradiated. It must be right that irradiated food is always clearly labelled. However, I believe that we should not deny that opportunity to those who wish at some time in the future to buy food that they believe is safer because it is irradiated.
A recent survey in Which? magazine was, to my mind, surprising, in that it reported that as many as 13 per cent. of those questioned would today prefer to buy irradiated food to food treated with preservatives. If that is the case, I suggest that the 87 per cent. of consumers who object should not prevent others making that choice. In short, therefore, I suggest that the Government's decision to legalise the irradiation of food is right. Consumers should be given the right to make their own decision on this matter.
I should like to refer briefly to Clause 19. I think that the intention to require registration of all food premises is both practical and the right thing to do. It is also right that the Government should make provision for licensing for what have been described as "sensitive areas". However, while wholly supporting the Government's intentions, I am concerned with the drafting of Clause 19. To my very untutored eye it appears to give the government of the day power to require licensing of any food premises. That is a power which at some future time might be thoroughly misused. I ask why the Goverment's intentions cannot be encapsulated in the legislation so that the power to require licensing applies more specifically and only to what Ministers
800
have described as "sensitive areas". The clause should be so drafted that it can cover both existing and as yet undiscovered technology which, as in the case of irradiation, there are good reasons to regard as sensitive.
I now turn to the fact that the Bill makes each link in the food chain responsible for matters within its sphere. As has been said, it removes the automatic assurance through a warranty. However, in a sense, that change consolidates the best practices of leading retailers. It will place a heavier potential responsibility on all retailers than exists under current legislation. Overall it should make more likely an improvement of standards.
However, the requirement upon retailers and manufacturers of due diligence will be applied consistently only if it is monitored and judged against a code of practice. This should be developed jointly by the Ministry, enforcement officers and the food trade. Without such a code there will be duplication of effort. There will be a waste of time and a waste of resources and there will be unnecessary and additional costs. It is very much in the interests of both the food trade and enforcement officers that an agreed code of practice is developed.
On enforcement, all, I am sure, will agree that there should be the same standards of enforcement throughout the country. Much depends on the abilities of the environmental health officers and trading standards officers, who will face a considerable increase in their responsiblities. A number of noble Lords have spoken about their training. I believe that there is a great deal to be done to improve that training to take account of this increased responsibility.
I should like to make a suggestion which I hope the authorities may consider helpful. It is that environmental health officers and trading standards officers in training —who already have a placement (in the case of environmental health officers, for a year) with a local authority—should also have a period with a food manufacturer or a food retailer. At present they visit commercial food operations and environmental health officers spend a short period at a slaughterhouse. But I question whether, in the light of this Bill, that is enough. A period working with a food manufacturer or a food retailer would give them greater knowledge and insight into some of the problems of the industry. However, the food industry is large and diverse and exposure to one part of it is only a modest step in the right direction with regard to providing adequate training and experience.
I believe also that organisation of enforcement needs to be addressed. There really should be greater co-operation between local authority trading standards departments and local authority environmental health departments. Many of their functions overlap. I trust that the recently announced Audit Commission study of environmental health departments will enable examples of best practice within local authorities to be identified and subsequently adopted by all local authorities.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to what is known as the home authority arrangement,

801
whereby a company's head office local authority acts on behalf of all other local authorities in handling the major issues of principle relating to trading standards. This system was set up by the local authority co-ordinating body on trading standards. It has played a valuable role in establishing national standards. I suggest that there is a good case for extending it further to cover environmental health matters.
In my experience, the system helps to foster a co-operative working relationship between a company and its enforcement authority. It provides benefits for them both and, more generally, it is an efficient use of scarce resources.
I welcome the provision of Clause 39 for the Minister to issue directives and recommended codes of practice. The Government have been criticised in the past for their lack of an active role in enforcement. This measure will go some way to counter that criticism.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on the scientific advice on food matters that is available to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in parenthesis, I agree with the noble Lord who suggested that the order of those responsibilities should be reversed). I should like to contrast that with the professional scientific advice available to the Minister on agriculture and available to the Minister of Health on medical matters. On food, I understand that there is one Grade 3 chief scientist, whereas on agriculture, including horticulture and animal health, there are five Grade 3 officers. The department's chief scientific adviser is Grade 2, while at the Department of Health the chief medical adviser is Grade 1 A. I do not claim any expertise on Civil Service grades and I certainly have no reason and no wish to criticise the professional competence of the scientific officers at MAFF. However, I believe at this time of national concern about food safety and at a time of much technical change in the industry, that the Minister should have in his department the best possible scientific advice available, especially on food microbiology.
Should there not be a chief food officer of the same grade as the chief medical officer who not only can ensure the best possible advice for the Minister, but can be seen by the public as a leading expert on food matters and a voice to whom they should listen?
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that there is much more that I could say on the issue of food safety and the contents of the Food Safety Bill, but not this evening. The Bill gives rise to a number of more technical issues that I believe are more appropriately addressed in Committee.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say again that the Bill is greatly to be welcomed and has my full support.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister of State for a very fine effort. I believe that the Bill will be a huge success. It looks very good. However, there is one point that I make. The Bill starts off very well and there is then a gap. The gap comes after the birth of the animal, its death and its subsequent consumption. That is where we
802
begin to have trouble. On its way to the table the meat goes to the slaughterhouse. In this country I do not think that we take enough care in slaughterhouses. I have seen slaughterhouses the meat from which I would certainly not like to eat. The argument applies abroad, but I have seen such conditions at home. I believe that they bear looking at a little more closely.
I have referred to slaugher, but we need to hang the meat to get decent beef. Since we have stopped hanging beef for 21 days we have had to sharpen our teeth to get into it. It is not so easy now. That should be looked into because we are spoiling very fine beef. It is not hung properly. The result is that one cannot cook it properly and one does not get first-class quality from what has been killed.
That was all that I meant to say. However, I have since heard one or two matters upon which I wish to comment. We have talked a lot about food control. We say that we are the best country in the world on that matter. We may be; I do not know. In about 1910 in Saxony —from where my friends came at that time —the food officers went round the various houses in the villages. They had power to go into any cupboard or larder and to look round and say, "That bottle has been hanging there too long. Do something about it". They had power to control what could be epidemics in the area. We have never had that control. Candidly, I do not think that we want it. I was in Germany for about 10 years. I never saw such control. But the control to which I have referred was in Saxony. I was in Westphalia and other parts of Germany, so perhaps I would not have seen it.
On microwave ovens, I have learnt that they heat from the inside, whereas coal heats from the outside. That is all I know about that.
I do not remember what these hygiene officers were called. I do not remember the name for them. Perhaps they were called Gesundheitspolizei.
I think we are a little more careful than we were in those days. I am all for a separate Abteilung, with properly trained people who can check our food from the various sources, from birth to slaughter. Veterinary people are now inspecting animals from birth to slaughter and that must be kept up. However, we lack inspection between slaughter and consumption where the trouble lies. I am glad to hear that the Bill will cover a great deal of that and I wish it the best of luck.
7.10. p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on much of its contents. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the clear and concise way in which she presented the main contents of the Bill. I hope that I can be equally concise and clear in bringing your Lordships' attention to some of the weaknesses that we have identified. We do so in a spirit of co-operation rather than in one of carping criticism. The debate has shown that noble Lords on all sides of the House wish to achieve the same result, although we have slightly different ways of approaching it and perhaps

803
a different pace. We wish to achieve safe, wholesome, varied food for all. I believe that only differences in emphasis and certain misgivings will emerge most clearly in Committee.
Dramatic changes have taken place in this country not only as regards food but in general social terms. That applies particularly since the 1950s and the Food and Drug Act 1955 upon which most of the present legislation is based. In her eloquent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, referred to some of the deep changes which have taken place and I agree with most of her comments. Most of today's newspapers contain reports of a food survey, the results of which were released yesterday. It stated that the nutritional value of food taken into the home is 9 per cent. less than that recommended in terms of energy intake.
One can visit an excellent supermarket in Nine Elms —just down the road —which comes under the responsibility of the noble Lord opposite. It is so palatial and well-organised that one can clearly watch what people are doing, as I did in my basic research. Most people put into their basket not basic ingredients but prepared food. The reason is the amount of change that has taken place. We cannot change them but, regrettably, there is less family life; less eating around the table in large numbers. Many women now work, and the pressure on a working husband and wife to prepare family meals from basic ingredients is too great so they tend to buy convenience foods. I agree that by and large such food is of excellent quality and that there is plenty of variety.
Restaurants and fast-food outlets have improved immeasurably during the past 10 years. Also during that time the general affluence of the population has increased. I fear that television may have contributed to the change in eating habits. There has been a tendency to take a tray in front of the television and eat a fast-food meal which may not be of high nutritional value rather than to sit down with the family at the table. Some noble Lords tell me that the trend may be reversed after the forthcoming broadcasting legislation but I remain to be convinced.
Against that background of change is the greater interest in and awareness of diet and health. We heard the most interesting speech by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. A growing number of people are interested in improving their quality of life by looking closer at what they eat and at the way in which their diets should be balanced. That is important and depends on education. To some extent I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She said that we can have all those things if we want them but that they will cost money and somebody must pay. At the end of the day I agree with her but at present, whether they mean it or not, too many people say, "We do not care about all the fancy things that you educated people are talking about. We care about the cost of our food". I do not believe that that is right but it is an observation which must be investigated. People must be educated and persuaded that the safety of food and its quality must be paid for. I believe that if the
804
issue is tackled sensibly and creatively the cost need not be too burdensome on the consumer. That is what the Bill and our criticisms are about.
We support the new enforcement role for environmental health officers and the £30 million being made available to local authorities. However, what assurances do we have that local authorities will use the money for the purposes for which it is intended? There is no way in which one can read that into the Bill and I have heard no comment about it. Naturally, one is sceptical about the way in which money is syphoned off for other purposes. However, I may be too cynical in my comments.
How will last year's 400-odd unfilled vacancies for environmental officers be filled? What education or further education will be required for the existing officers to carry out their duties under the Bill? There is a great deal of power to legislate through regulation. That was admirably discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. One wonders whether the input which goes into decision-making before legislation comes before Parliament is such that the ability of a food directorate within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and input from the Department of Health will be enough. Is it not now time that we thought seriously about the the setting up of a wholly independent body such as a food standards agency along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Ezra? The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said that she had also given the idea some credence but had now changed her view. She believes that the present structure is sufficient but I wonder whether there is not a little unease about the situation.
We on these Benches are greatly concerned about pesticides, and that is not covered in the Bill. The whole nation is concerned about pesticides and there is a need for more checks on their effects and perhaps a ban on aerial spraying. We are also concerned about labelling. We start from the premise that as much information as possible should be made available to the consumer. As far as possible he has the right to know exactly what he is buying in the supermarket and in as simple and direct a way as possible. Present standards are well behind those needed properly to inform the public at large. The "use by" date is of more use than the "sell by" date and that change will be most welcome.
As regards explanations, even in excellent retail outlets such as those that come under the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, confusion arises. When I visited one of his stores I was confused about the foods which are popularly known by the term "cook and chill" or "chill and cook". There was also confusion in the mind of the person I spoke to. I am not clear about whether one can put some products back into the freezer, whether one must eat them within 20 days. On some products there is an explanation and one some there is not. there is an explanation and on some there is not. Products of the label of the noble Lord's organisation are very explicit on that point. I am concerned about other products where the information is not so explicit.
As regards licensing and registration —and I do not know whether I speak entirely on behalf of my

805
colleagues on these Benches on this matter—I prefer registration to licensing because, wherever possible, registration is more flexible and licensing smacks of bureaucracy because it is so cumbersome. Obviously, there are areas where that already exists; for example, in slaughterhouses and so on. With the development of irradiation and so on, licensing may well be necessary. However, I should have thought that in most areas, if the inspectorate is up to the job and on its toes, it should be able to deal with the registration of businesses and do that as quickly as possible to make sure that the proper standards are maintained. Therefore, I believe that registration is very welcome; licensing is welcome where it is absolutely necessary; and one hopes that registration does not have to move to licensing as that will produce unhappy results in cumbersome handling of procedures.
We are very keen on training of all kinds, especially for food handlers in the area of hygiene. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The question of costs is involved and I am concerned that in the Bill, even with the provision of the £30 million, there will perhaps not be sufficient money. How much money will be needed and where will that money come from? I was very interested in the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, about environmental health officers visiting food processing factories. That is an excellent idea but I wonder who will pay for that. I believe that there should be considerable input into that cost structure by the manufacturers. Of course there would be an enormous advantage in speeding up communications.
We like the fact that the doctrine of due diligence is to replace statutory warranties. However, I agree, as other noble Lords have said, that guidance is needed on that. That matter will probably come before your Lordships' House in due course. Codes of practice are clearly vital in that area.
I turn briefly to irradiation because that is something about which my colleagues feel very strongly, as do I. Like the noble Lord opposite, I do not have an 0-level but I believe that irradiation is known as soft nuclear technology. That sounds very frightening. We believe that it is too early to greet the process with the even guarded enthusiasm which some of your Lordships have shown this evening. Are we not in danger of assuming that this process is safe merely because there has not been evidence to show that it is unsafe? I believe that even scientists are at odds about the effects of irradiation. There was an exchange in your Lordships' House about the fact that the public understandably confuse irradiation with radiation. We know that the process reduces nutritional value by destroying some 30 per cent. of vitamins. Most viruses such as hepatitis, a disease which I have had, and salmonella, from which I have also suffered, so that I have been unlucky in that regard, are resistant to it. Surely in this area we must proceed with some caution and not welcome it too eagerly. I believe, as perhaps does the public, that it is too early to approve. I take the point that in some areas —for example, spices —it is preferable to other forms of additive in order to kill pests and so on.
806
We welcome the Second Reading of this Bill and look forward to lively debates in Committee. I hope that, at the end, we shall produce a better Bill to the benefit of everybody.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in winding up the debate for the official Opposition I am, as noble Lords will be well aware, very much the third choice speaker. However, I assure the House that when we come to Committee stage my place will be taken by my noble friend Lord Carter and, with the help of my noble friend Lord Gallacher, he will bring his expertise to bear on these very serious matters.
Being a lay person I have one great advantage; that is, when I say that the consumer is paramount I actually mean it. When I refer to consumer sovereignty there is no comma and the word "but" and then reference to producers. Perhaps I may say that I am disappointed, although not surprised, that in this debate —and I believe that I have listened to every speech —the majority of noble Lords have represented the producer interest. I am not surprised but I do not believe that that should be the case.
In that connection I say a few words about the department of the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said that she was no longer convinced that MAFF represents the producer interest. I have been at Whitehall for over 25 years on and off and it is commonplace in Whitehall that if there is one department which is a front organisation for the producers, notably the farmers, it is the department of the noble Baroness.
I am always ready to welcome change and if there has been a conversion on the part of MAFF to consumer protection, nothing would please me or others interested in this matter more. Therefore, I am willing to suspend disbelief but only to place MAFF on probation. It must be subject to continual critical scrutiny when it comes to actual cases of consumer protection, especially when those cases conflict with producer interest.
In that connection I should like reassurance about the independence of the consumer panel and its membership. I do not wish to discover that on all sorts of grounds the producers have dominated the panel.
One other acerbic contribution I must make refers to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his criticism of my noble friend Lord Rea. It is not for me to give the noble Lord a lesson in elementary economics but he did make a remark on profit maximisation. He should know that the economic theory on which all of his party's economic policies are currently based contains as fundamental propositions, first, that firms maximise profits and, secondly, that it is right that they should do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord might accept the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who sadly is still not here although he has been back to the Chamber, used that phrase in a derogatory fashion. He did not say that it is right that it should be so but that it is wrong that it should be so. It was that which I was picking up rather than a technical phrase.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot comment on that. I merely say that if the noble Lord does not like the use of the expression "profit maximisation" he should complain to Professor Walters, to Professor Friedman or to the apparatchiks of the Institute of Economic Affairs and similar bodies or complain to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, because they are the people who believe in it. He should not criticise us for that.
Let us look at the principles on which a Bill of this sort is and should be based. Those principles seem to me to be: first —and again I remind your Lordships that I said it —that the production and distribution of food in this country is and will continue to be the overwhelming responsibility of the private sector. That will be done via the market mechanism. However, the necessity for a Bill of this kind is that one cannot be certain that an unregulated private sector will do the job properly. That is why there is the Bill and the regulations. We have here an example par excellence of the market mechanism but within an appropriate regulatory framework.
If one asks why there is a need for regulation, it seems to me overwhelmingly that that need is to do with information and the fact that the market left to itself will not provide sufficient understandable information to consumers.
The second reason we require as a matter of principle this form of regulation —and indeed why we welcome it —is that competition needs to be fair. The worry here is that the unregulated market left to itself will demonstrate —if your Lordships will forgive the invention of this —the proposition that bad food will drive out good. Essentially the need to have the agencies that the Government quite rightly wish to have in this Bill is in order to give those producers who have higher standards and want to compete on fair terms a level playing field on which to compete.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on reputation were, I believe, important. Reputation does matter, but when one gets what might be regarded as a failure in this area all food producers suffer. It cannot be assumed that one's reputation will act as a total protection. There is an adverse spin-off of what might be called the less than satisfactory producers and distributors. That again is why we need regulation.
I shall say a few final words on consumer protection. I accept that compensation is relevant. The overwhelming majority of consumers would rather not suffer; they would prefer to be protected than to suffer and be compensated. I too was one of those who suffered from the salmonella outbreak in your Lordships' House. I have to say to noble Lords who did not that it is not an experience I would recommend to anybody whatever. It so happens —and I have never raised this before —that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, made no effort to compensate me, or other noble Lords, with a free meal. Even if he had made that offer I should still rather he offered to guarantee that it did not happen again. That is why, although I do not object to compensation as being relevant in this matter, I regard it as much less important than effective protection and regulation.
808
I agree very much with those noble Lords who think that regulation has to apply to the whole food chain. We cannot arbitrarily cut it off at any point. In that connection, when we come to the definition of food businesses, which are mentioned in the Bill, it is not clear to me that as a concept they include farms. I should like an answer as to whether "food businesses" includes farms per se, without further ado. If not, it ought to.
I shall say a few words on irradiation. Like other noble Lords, although I have what used to be called a General School Certificate in various sciences, I make no pretence of being a scientist, but I do have the sense to ask scientists for their views. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made is correct: the scientific community is divided on this. I was surprised that one or two noble Lords appeared to think that the position was clear-cut.
I await with great interest the report of Sub-committee D, of which I used to be a member. We do not fully understand the microbiological consequences of food irradiation. My view echoes what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland said; we should proceed cautiously. In particular, apart from awaiting with interest the report of the committee, I believe movement on this matter is occuring in Brussels and I should have thought Her Majesty's Government would be well advised to wait and see what happens in Brussels before jumping into any final decisions on these matters.
In that connection I have to say —and I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, though that will not affect my propensity to buy in his stores —one cannot simply leave this to consumer choice. If there are scientific doubts —and I underline the word "if" —enterprises with a public responsibility ought at least to think carefully before proceeding down the path of irradiation.
I am trying to be open minded. I am not anti-science; I am not anti anything in this sense, but I believe in being cautious. More generally, however, in this area of food and what is sometimes called technical progress, as someone who likes nutritious, wholesome food, I feel more inclined to refer to it as technical regress. It leads to the paradox that, if it is true that Britain's food has never been safer than it is today, how does one explain the fact that we have never before had outbreaks of food related illnesses on this scale? There may be other explanations, but that certainly needs examining.
On the question of an independent body, I agree with those noble Lords and all the serious consumer organisations who believe that there ought to be an independent regulatory body. It is a pity that the Government did not go along those lines.
I wish to make two remarks concerning training. There clearly must be proper training for the environmental health officers and related people. I am very struck that the Royal Society of Chemistry, for example, is one of the bodies which has pressed on me and other noble Lords the importance of this field. I am also at least as much concerned with training of those who handle food. As I understand the Bill —and I hope I will be contradicted —the

809
training element of food handlers at all stages is not mandatory. There ought to be training but there will be no compulsory training.
I should have thought on general grounds, first, that we ought to move towards mandatory training in this field. Secondly, the relevant body, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, could with the industry start to move in the direction of drawing up appropriate training standards and then proceeding to ensure that they happen in practice. Clearly it would not be possible, given the enormous number of people in the industry at this time, to make training a legal requirement now, but surely a rational government should move in that direction in the longer term.
Wearing my education hat I am a little disappointed —and I am very much with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland —that not enough is said in this Bill, first, about the importance of good nutrition. Secondly, there are no references in the Bill that I can see about health education. It seems to me —and other noble Lords have made this point —that it is absurd to emphasise hygiene and careful food handling only up to the point that the stuff gets to the household, because a great many problems start in the household. We do not want another debate about the national curriculum, but it would be a great pity if the school curriculum did not include appropriate health nutritional education in an effective form. The dangers of food is not the biggest health hazard —it cannot compete with tobacco in the damage it does to people —but it is not a trivial matter and I hope that that is fully recognised by the Government.
I have one or two other queries before concluding. They concern an area where the Bill really disappointed me. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum "Part I: Preliminary" states: "Clause 1 defines 'food' ". I looked at Clause 1 because I wanted to know how food was defined. I am willing to sit down immediately if noble Lords will point me to the right part but I cannot see any definition of "food" in Clause 1.
I am particularly interested in the fact that "food" appears in inverted commas. I should have thought that the producers would be absolutely furious that food is not allowed to appear as an ordinary word but has to appear in inverted commas as if there is something bizarre about it. However, it is not remotely defined at all. I should have thought a legal definition of food would be of value. It is of particular interest to me because of my health interests to distinguish between what is a food and what is a medicine. There is a need to do that.
At the present time we find a number of spurious operators who, in order to get around the Medicines Act, sell something as a food but then have a great deal of covering literature provided implying that it acts as a medicine. We have some difficulty, when dealing with that appalling behaviour, in defining a medicine because medicines are no longer defined by what they are but by what they do. It would also be a help if the Bill were to be amended —the Government having said that Clause 1 defines "food" —so that the Bill actually does that.
810
A noble Lord has said that the Bill is not party political, and I apologise for not remembering his name. I certainly do not see it as such. However, I have fallen into this trap before on other Bills. The Minister rises to say that all amendments are welcome and that we all have to be constructive. Yet at the moment we try to pass a constructive amendment one of two things happen. For example, the Government will not accept a particular amendment or it is forced on them in the other place.
Nonetheless my noble friends and I will try to amend the Bill in order to improve it. There is one part that is political and it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gallacher; namely, the difference between the negative procedure and the positive procedure. I believe that to adopt the negative procedure for regulations is unsatisfactory. Perhaps it is not a political point because I have often heard noble Lords say from the other side of the House that they do not like the procedure, and one or two of them today have said so.
We shall certainly press on the Government the need to look again at the procedure. 1: have done the best I can as a lay person. However, I believe I omitted to say that in broad terms we welcome the Bill. In saying that, there are matters that could be improved. My noble friends and I and, I am sure, noble Lords opposite, will do all we can to make quite a good Bill into a very good one.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington said in opening this Second Reading debate, this Bill is a joint initiative between MAFF and the Department of Health. Therefore, in winding up I shall make every effort to respond to the many and varied questions and issues that have been raised concerning both my noble friend's Ministry and the Department of Health. I shall also deal with matters relating to the territorial departments.
Perhaps I may begin by clarifying to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, the fact that Northern Ireland is not covered by the Bill. In opening, my noble friend said that the Bill would cover Great Britain, that parallel legislation would be made in Northern Ireland by Order in Council, and that in Scotland —and I can reassure the noble Lord on this point —wide consultation took place.
To my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour I can say that, in moving to Great Britain legislation, extensive consultation was carried out in Scotland. A wide variety of Scottish organisations was consulted from within the food industry, enforcement authorities and consumer interests. Responses largely reflected those we received in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland will still be able to act in his own right where warranted, and to make regulations. Enforcement will remain the responsibility of local authority, island and district councils. Both food and agriculture and health officials of the Scottish Office conducted the consultation exercise in Scotland and participated fully in preparations for the Bill.

811
It is gratifying that there has been a general welcome for the Bill from all sides of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that the Bill was non-party political. That is welcome. There was the seal of approval from my noble friend, the former chairman of the National Consumer Council, and that is also welcome. I was therefore rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggested that the consumers' point of view had not been adequately covered in the course of this debate. However, I am glad that he did not criticise the provisions of the Bill in that respect.
While on the question of consumer interests, the noble Lord raised the matter of the independence of the consumer panel: consumer interests will be entirely independently served. There will be nine consumer members nominated by consumer organisations. They will be nominated because they are ordinary consumers who can discuss the issues meaningfully. Agriculture departments and Department of Health officials will be in attendance. The chairman will of course be my honourable friend the Minister for Food.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. There is a point that I meant to raise which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also mentioned. Will this body have all the information that it wants in doing its job?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. It is certainly our intention and that was the objective in setting up this body.
I shall perhaps not be criticised for having come to the conclusion, as a result of this debate, that the subject exercising the minds of most of your Lordships is irradiation. A large number of your Lordships starting with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised various particular issues. The noble Lord suggested that the problems should be frankly recognised. They are. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton for illuminating this perhaps complex subject from his specialised knowledge.
The regulations that we propose will provide a full and detailed control mechanism, but the detail is appropriate to specific regulations and not to this general Bill. There will be full consultation on all aspects of the introduction of food irradiation at the appropriate time. But that time is not today. At the moment I shall simply say that whatever confusion there may be among the lay public about irradiation, the safety and wholesomeness of the process has been confirmed by one independent scientific committee after another.
In taking steps to introduce irradiation the Government are following a recommendation from the World Health Organisation, which is concerned about the increasing incidence of food-borne disease and wishes to see food irradiation introduced to combat it. In addition to the World Health Organisation we have the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Institute of Food Science and Technology, the British Nutrition Foundation and all the independent scientific committees, all of
812
which have reviewed the four decades of research on the subject and support irradiation.
My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to fears about radioactivity. We should be quite clear about that. All food is slightly radioactive. It contains naturally occurring radionuclides. The infinitesimal extra radioactivity induced by this process is too small even to be measured. Scientists have calculated that it is a hundred thousand-fold smaller than the amount found naturally in food.
With respect to the EC directive, the Government's proposals on irradiation are being brought forward against the background of the proposed directive, but we do not necessarily have to wait for it to be adopted before implementing legislation in the United Kingdom. However, we are playing a full part in the current discussions on the proposed directive with the aim of ensuring that what is ultimately agreed is a harmonised regime that provides the additional safety assurance that consumers require within a tight control system.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked how close we are to an easily applied test for irradiation. That is difficult to forecast. How soon a test is devised depends on several methods that show promise. But we need to be satisfied that the results are reproducible in all circumstances and that the methods themselves can be applied by all laboratories. We are funding continued research because we accept that a test would be a useful supplement to the licensing controls that we are proposing.
In summary, we believe that irradiation is here to stay but that it must be properly controlled. The Food Safety Bill will therefore be used to bring in a full licensing system for irradiation facilities, which will be under central government control. There will be detailed inspection by specialists before plants can operate and licences will impose precise conditions. But, most importantly, we support the consumer's right to choose whether or not to buy irradiated food. I wish to emphasise that there will therefore be a requirement for full and clear labelling of irradiated food.
Several noble Lords expressed concern about registration under the Bill. It may be useful if I explain that we propose a simple registration scheme. Food businesses will be asked to supply only a few brief details, such as their address, the proprietor's name and the number of staff employed. We envisage prescribing the registration form in the regulations. There will be no charge for registration, and with the simple kinds of procedure we have in mind, we would envisage covering all commercial and permanent food businesses.
As noble Lords will know, the aim of registration is to enable local authorities to target their resources more effectively. In some areas, the turnover of food businesses is very high indeed. Once we have a registration scheme in place, local authorities will know which businesses have changed hands and which new ones have opened. They will be able to inspect any that seem to them to constitute a high risk. I should like to reassure noble Lords who are anxious on this score that the registration scheme

813
will be a simple, free-standing requirement. As with all the regulations made under food legislation, we shall be consulting interested parties in full on the details of the regulations before they are finalised. This will give interested parties plenty of time to let us know their views on the scope and purpose of the registration scheme. We believe that the costs to business will be minimal. However, there may be charges for licensing. An example might be the irradiation plants to which I referred. Our detailed proposals will be set out in regulations. These will be preceded by consultation.
There will of course be enforcement procedures. The Bill contains sufficient powers to achieve the prompt closure of premises which put public health at risk. If a business is found to be insanitary, enforcement officers will have strong powers to serve improvement and prohibition notices on the proprietor. They will be able to close the premises down on the spot if they present a grave danger to health, and they will be able to apply to a court to have the proprietor prohibited from carrying on a good business elsewhere.
As my noble friend has said, the Bill contains powers which will enable us to require food businesses to be licensed. The licensing powers in the Bill would be used where a category of food business posed a particular risk to health which meant that tighter controls were necesssary. We intend to use this enabling power to license businesses producing irradiated food. However, the power will enable us to extend the licensing requirement to other types of business if this becomes necessary in the future.
On the question of enforcement, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that we intend to keep broadly the same division of responsibilities between local authorities as exist now. However, the flexibility in the Bill will allow us to make changes if that seems necessary in the future. There have been some cases where we would have liked more flexibility under the present Act. For example, environmental health officers cannot use Section 1 of the present Act. This might have been helpful to them in dealing with the recent botulism outbreak.
Several noble Lords were concerned about the financial aspects of the Bill. We have recognised that local authorities will need extra staff to carry out their new duties effectively. We believe that this is likely to cost about £30 million from 1991–92 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's revenue support grant settlement. It represents a good response on behalf of the Government. There will also be a cost in terms of Civil Service manpower, but we do not believe that any overall increase will be necessary. The intention is to reflect in the revenue support grant settlement the additional costs arising from new tasks and duties to be created by the Bill, including setting up the register of food premises and carrying out more frequent inspections. The details will be set out in regulations. However, we have noted the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning the training of enforcement officers.
814
The £30 million cost has been calculated, after consultation, on the best information available. There is therefore no reason to think that it is in any way an underestimate. I have been asked whether there is any way of ensuring that the £30 million is not used for other purposes. Clause 6(2) imposes a duty on local authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill. To do this, they will have to make appropriate financial provision. Furthermore, our powers in Clause 39 to issue and if necessary to enforce codes of practice will ensure that local authorities carry out enforcement work to the required standard.
I can tell my noble friend Lady Carnegy that Scottish local authorities are accounted for in the £30 million estimate. After consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, estimates suggest that a figure of £3 million may be needed in Scotland. This will be taken into account next year when the revenue support grant is negotiated by the Scottish Office.
Most, if not all, noble Lords referred to training—in particular, hygiene training for food handlers. One of the main aims of the Bill is to ensure that good hygiene standards are maintained, thus reducing the risk of unsafe food being put on sale for public consumption. We believe that ensuring that those who handle food receive proper training in food hygiene is an important step on the way to achieving that aim. However, our proposals raise a number of complex issues. We feel it is essential to seek the views of the food industry, enforcement agencies, consumer organisations and other interested parties before deciding on the details of the requirements. That is why my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health today published a consultation document which discusses the issues involved.
As we said in the White Paper earlier this year, many of those who handle food already receive hygiene training through courses organised by the food industry, local authorities and other bodies. One of our main aims will be to produce regulations which take account of the excellent training provision which already exists in many parts of the industry. The Bill also enables local authorities to run food hygiene courses and to charge for them in order to supplement the training provision in their areas. This is not intended to allow local authorities to monopolise training, but to give statutory backing to the existing practice and to increase the options available to employers. We believe that businesses should be able to choose from a wide range of options the type of training which is best for them.
The regulations on training will be enforced by environmental health officers who, when they are inspecting the premises, will be able to check that staff in a business have been trained. The regulations may therefore require a business to show some documentary evidence that staff have been trained. This evidence might take a number of forms, such as certificates or other records of training. They are discussed in the consultation document. We hope that all those consulted will give our proposals their fullest consideration. The closing date for replies is

815
30th June 1990. This allows more than six months for consultation. We look forward to a full and constructive response.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about compulsory training for food handlers. The Government's firm intention is to make some kind of training compulsory for most food handlers, especially those working in high risk areas. The consultation paper deals with that. I agree with the noble Lord that training will have to be phased in.
My noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Sainsbury mentioned the training of enforcement officers. The training for environmental health officers gives them a thorough grounding in matters of health and hygiene. Most of the inspections they carry out are in retail premises, restaurants and other catering establishments. I am confident that their existing training equips them well for this work. However, in some areas they need more specialised knowledge, especially when dealing with high technology processes. In Schedule 1, paragraph 4, the Bill provides enabling powers to give such officers access to the opinion of experts on such processes. Those experts will give a view on the safety of the process being used.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that a trading standards officer should be seconded to MAFF's safety directorate. MAFF officials already have frequent and helpful contact with TSOs, but the idea of a secondment is interesting and one which I know my noble friend, Lady Trumpington, will wish to consider further. Therefore the detailed letter which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, promised will be most welcome.
I also welcome the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury that EHOs might usefully spend a period of training within the food industry. If he is pledging the participation of his company in this respect, we shall certainly take up the matter with the EHOs' training board.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, echoed I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, called for a good agency to be set up along the lines of the Office of Fair Trading. There have been suggestions in this respect and we have therefore considered this type of agency. However, the parallel is not in fact all that clear. We believe that it is right and necessary for action to protect consumers to be taken by Ministers who are answerable in Parliament, especially in this important area of food safety. Therefore, like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, I find myself at something of a loss to see exactly what such a body would do which is not already covered by the responsibilities of Ministers or by the activities of local authority enforcement under the provisions of the Bill.
Many noble Lords raised the question of practices on farms in relation to feedingstuffs. The reason the Bill specifically excludes feedingstuffs is that they are already covered by the Agriculture Act 1970 and by an extensive body of European Community regulations. Therefore, I should like to clarify the position to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. For the above reason the expression "food businesses" in
816
the Bill does not cover farms —except, of course, farm shops.
I turn now to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in relation to slaughterhouses. This is not primarily a matter for the Bill because we have the powers we need elsewhere. However, my right honourable friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that we must move towards a system under which all our plants are subject to the same conditions and supervision arrangements. Not only will this reassure consumers; it will also ensure that we are able to take full advantage of the opportunities which will arise in the single market after 1992. Therefore we shall be moving to a single set of rules for all meat plants in the United Kingdom. The European Commission has not yet made formal proposals for red meat or meat products, but it is clear in its view that a single standard in those areas is necessary. As regards poultry meat, European Community standards apply to all licensed poultry plants whether or not they produce meat for export.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the question of exemption of primary agricultural products from product liability. He asked why we do not end the present exemption in this respect. The exemption is specifically permitted under the European Community directive on product liability and has been taken up by most member states. Therefore there would be distortion of competition to the prejudice of the United Kingdom if we were to change our stance. It should also be understood that the exemption applies only to agricultural produce in its raw state and not to that which has been processed in any way. Moreover, it will be difficult to enforce product liability in a way which is fair and effective. Food is very prone to defects which can develop when it is quite beyond the control of the original producer.
As regards compensation for consumers made ill by unsafe food, I am all in favour of this proposal. However, it is not necessary to change the law in order to achieve that aim. In fact there are many avenues of possible redress already available.
It has been suggested that the Bill is full of enabling powers but that it contains little detail. Our aim is to be worked out in regulations: in other words, a flexible approach which allows the law to be adapted flexible approach which allows the law to be adapted as circumstances change. That approach has stood the test of time well and I believe that it is in the best interests of consumers. In this respect the codes of recommended practice for local authorities will be drawn up by an implementation advisory committee involving the main government departments concerned and local authority representatives. We intend that codes could eventually be drawn up to cover such matters as the frequency of inspection appropriate for different types of food premises and the rates of sampling per head of population.
The codes of practice are intended for the guidance of food authorities to help bring about more even enforcement standards, rather than for the courts or for the industry as some noble Lords may have assumed. Of course we do not intend to allow work on the codes of practice to delay the introduction of

817
the Bill's provisions; but we also need to take account of the Audit Commission's study on the enforcement of food law.
On the vexed question of annulment procedure for regulations, which is a matter that is frequently raised in our discussions on legislation in this House, I should say that the procedure is already the norm in existing food legislation. It is also our normal practice to undertake public consultation on the regulations before presenting them to Parliament. This is provided for in Clause 26(1) of the Bill. Moreover, on deciding upon this approach we have had regard to the first special report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in relation to the affirmative resolution procedure. The report which was published in 1973 dealt with the possibility of rationalising the numerous kinds of parliamentary control for statutory instruments currently in existence and outlined where the affirmative resolution procedure was normally appropriate. The report also said that the most sensible approach is that the negative procedure should generally be selected unless the power is of a type which would normally require the affirmative procedure, or unless it is of the type over which Parliament has generally been content to relinquish any further control.
In this connection perhaps I may turn once again to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland exercises responsibility for food safety and milk matters in Scotland as he does for agriculture and health. Regulations will normally be made jointly with other Ministers under the Bill, but provision exists for the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders when necessary specifically for Scotland, although we anticipate that this will be the exception.
Many interesting points were raised this evening but I feel that time is running out. However, I wish to refer specifically to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Lyell in relation to the famous case of Donaghue v. Stevenson. I can reassure him that Clause 8 will cover the sale of food not complying with food safety requirements. It will deal with cases of extraneous matter in food making the food unsafe, or otherwise unacceptable. This was of course the subject at issue in the stated case.
That leads me to the point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on a matter of considerable importance to numerous charities. If food is sold, and causes food poisoning, it is covered by the law now. We shall not be changing the position of charities in that respect. It is, and will remain, an offence for anyone to sell unfit food, but under the Bill we say the registration, for example, will cover commercial and permanent food businesses. That will not apply to most charities or voluntary organisations.
It was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that the Bill is too narrow and covers only food safety and not nutrition and other important matters. The Government are keenly aware of the need for the public to have sound dietary advice and information. The Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy provides scientific advice on nutrition, diet and health. We are committed to translating that advice into nutrition
818
education for health professionals and the public, but we believe that that is a matter for advice and not legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Hives said, it is not the Government's business to tell people what to eat but to ensure that a good supply of safe food is available. On that note I conclude by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cambodia
8.11 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use all available means to draw the attention of the United Nations and other international bodies to the plight of the people of Cambodia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the plight of the people of Cambodia over the past one and a half decades has been gruesomely appalling. It is no mean undertaking merely to read through the large amount of documentation about Cambodia. It leaves one with a feeling of shock, horror and shame. I should like to pay my respects to Mr. John Pilger and Mr. David Monro, who did so much practical research and related their experiences of what had gone on in Cambodia. I should also like to thank the Foundation for International Security for its Cambodia Briefing and its detailed research.
A renowned British journalist, John Pilger is a world traveller who specialises in visiting places of uncertainty and upheaval. He has declared that he has seen nothing to compare with what he saw in Cambodia in the aftermath of Pol Pot's Communist terror. A correspondent of The Times at the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Belsen described what he witnessed as something beyond the imagination of mankind to describe. Pilger felt that what he saw in Cambodia following the Pol Pot terror in 1979 was the same, and in some respects worse.
Many of us who saw the bestiality of Nazi terror can understand the revulsion of people like Pilger who were in Cambodia over a decade ago and who saw so much. The shameful agony is that it is still going on. We are doing nothing. Nay, perhaps because of inaction, we are shutting our eyes to a south east Asian holocaust. We might have had the excuse that we did not know what the Nazis were doing, but we cannot say we do not know what the Pol Pot Communists are doing in the most revolting manner imaginable.
Pilger explains how on 17th April 1975 he saw the devastation at the international airport at Phnom Penh—beaconless runways, deserted control tower, and pyramids of rusting cars, ambulances, fire engines, police cars, refrigerators, washing-machines, television sets, telephones, and hair-dryers, all abandoned. What is most terrible is the condition of the rice paddies and fields which were overgrown by tall grass, forest and mangrove.
At the edge of towns, grass grows in straight lines, having been fertilised by human compost —the remains of thousands upon thousands of Cambodian men, women and children. Those lines marked common graves in a nation where it is acknowledged that 2 million people are "missing". They are the victims of the victory of the Khmer Rouge —the Pol Pot Communist killers —which planned all that deliberately.
From 1979, anyone who owned cars or similar luxuries in city or town, or had a basic education, or a modern skill, such as nurses, teachers, engineers, tradespeople or students, or those who worked for foreigners —clerks, travel agents and journalists—were in danger, many under a sentence of death. Thousands were slain.
In this country of ours it is difficult for us to try to imagine that in Cambodia a Royal Ballet company of 500 dancers was attacked by Pol Pot's killers and only a few dozen survived.
The evil ideology of the Khmer Rouge was based on the so-called revolution unleashed by Mao Tse-tung and the savagery of the Pol Pot regime was based on the return of a docile peasantry; in other words, total slavery. That meant no families, no sentiment, no love or grief, no medicine, no hospitals, no schools, no learning, no books, no holidays, no music, no post, only work and death. It was a literal hell on earth.
The current situation in Cambodia underlines the uselessness of the United Nations, and is a condemnation of the United Nations. The Western world seems hardly interested despite the United States action which started the genocide long before Pol Pot. One must face those facts so that they are not repeated. For example, in six months during 1973 more American bombs were dropped on Cambodia than were dropped by the Americans in Japan in World War Two. They were the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. All that horror and terror preceded Pol Pot. There seems little doubt —this is the wonderful thing about the great democracies; when they do evil they disclose it —that the documents which have been released recently by the United States Government under their Freedom of Information Act reveal that President Nixon and Mr. Henry Kissinger ordered the illegal bombing of a neutral country and provided the inferno and catalyst which gave rise to Pol Pot who then brought about, as I have said, the South East Asian holocaust. However, at that time, as the Americans have now revealed, the American people knew nothing of what had been going on.
The British Government have shown the correct attitude, although there are some faults which I shall explain later. Our Government's policy is the right one. They want a soveriegn and independent Cambodia. However, it was disappointing that the Paris Conference failed. The Government acknowledge that the Khmer Rouge is the source of all atrocities in Cambodia, and it will continue to be unless we consult our friends. I understand that the Government intend to do that to try to put an end to all that horror. What is disturbing, and what I
820
cannot understand—perhaps the Minister will explain —is why the Government voted in the United Nations to legitimise the present Cambodian regime which is as murderous as Hitler and Stalin were and is under the close control of Pol Pot. I hope that the Minister will explain that. The United Nations vote for Pol Pot denied Cambodia any assistance from the great international bodies. We have to face the fact that Prince Sihanouk is equally useless and is a bit of a sham. At the World Health Assembly the British delegate voted for Pol Pot's man to take over the Cambodian Seat. That meant that the resources of the world Health Organisation were denied to Cambodia.
Quite recently a letter was sent to our Prime Minister, to President Bush and to President Mitterrand protesting loudly at the appalling behaviour of the Western world. It was signed by some Members of this House, by many Members of the House of Commons and by people with very well-known names like Leonard Cheshire, VC, OM, the right honourable Neil Kinnock, Sir Yehudi Menuhin and Peter Ustinov. I believe that that must mean that people of all professions, as well as ordinary folk, are greatly disturbed as to what is going on.
This terrible story of the agony of Cambodia is made worse by the apparent international muddle. I hope that the Government will acknowledge this. I do not believe that they are entirely to blame; I think that they might have done their best in the circumstances. But they too have had to face international muddle. They must not contribute to it.
I felt very proud that it was Australia which demanded that the United Nations should run a transitional government in Cambodia until free elections were held. The Australians are not backward in coming forward and condemning the United Nations. They are now demanding that the United Nations, with the support of everyone, both military and otherwise, should see that a government is established in Cambodia and that Pol Pot and his hangers-on should be turfed out.
I hope that our Government, everybody in this House and the other place and, I am sure, the people of our country will support the Australians in their demand to the United Nations. I also hope that our Government will officially support the Australian proposal. It is meant to bring relief to the people of Cambodia, to help them on the road to freedom and relief from murder.
I conclude with these words. I find it remarkable that people can suffer so much who never had a chance from the moment they were born to enjoy freedom. They have always been terrified of possible murder; they have never been totally free from hunger. I believe that the civilised people of our world should demand that this must stop. The civilised nations of the world must now stand together, firm and determined to rid Cambodia of the bestial people who exist there under all kinds of pretences. They are still there; there are still the evil people used by Pol Pot. The Cambodian people have been the victims of one of the most horrible regimes in the history of mankind.
I hope that our Government will take a lead and join with the Australians and the British Commonwealth to command the United Nations to see that this is brought to an end. Then the Cambodian people can be given an opportunity to rule themselves, to build their nation and to come to love their nation as we in this House love ours.
8.24 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for what he said. I endorse every word of it and perhaps I might just as well sit down and have done with it. However I shall add one or two points because I have been to Cambodia on several occasions.
The first thing to remember is that this is a very old civilisation. There were 600 years of high civilisation before the renaissance in Europe even started. There were buildings which were held in great admiration by the Chinese and which are still visited by many people. They were of a high degree of art and quality which nobody should underestimate. There was a very well developed religion which was drawn from India: the people were mostly Buddhists but some were Hindus. The Hindus are very well suited to ceremonial occasions.
The country extended over the whole of Laos, Vietnam and probably most of Thailand. It was a civilisation of the utmost importance, of which we know little in this country. It is the descendants of those people whom we see today. It is interesting that if we ask them, they will say that they were always there. Probably they were not, but still they go back a very long way. They are not descended either from the Chinese, as are the Vietnamese, or from the Thais. They are a separate breed whose origin is surrounded in the utmost obscurity.
As I said, I agree with what the noble Lord said but wish to add one point. I take these words—because it amuses me to do so —from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It says that Pol Pot was the cruellest man in the history of the world. Let there be no illusion about it.
Perhaps I may go a little into his crimes. The noble Lord said that Pol Pot took things from Mao Tse Tung; he may have done, but it was a pretty original thought under communism—the extirpation of everybody who was educated. What is "educated"? Who is "educated"? I am told that things had gone so far that if a person had a pencil in his pocket it showed that possibly he could write. Accordingly he was due to be executed. What was the execution? I shall now tell you quite frankly what I was told. They buried the body up to the neck and then they stuck a dagger in its neck and the blood shot up to two or three feet. I repeat that as a story which has been told to me. Those are the kinds of ghastly events which happended on many occasions all over the country.
We must ask this question: what is the use of the United Nations? What is the use of any of these organisations if they cannot do something to help? Where are we to stand in the world? If people do this in one place, they will do it in another. We must make it clear that we as a country stand for
822
something which makes this utterly intolerable. We cannot expect civilisation to thrive in Europe and see it destroyed in Asia. We are one organisation of people and I ask the Government particularly to see what they can do to stop anything comparable ever happening again in that country.
The Cambodians have suffered, as the noble Lord said, from bombing from the Americans and from the invasion of the Vietnamese. Now it looks possible that after a conference in Paris at which nobody could agree. Pol Pot will walk back into power. Is this going to happen? How can we stand back and let it happen to these people with whom we had the friendliest relations and who have done absolutely nothing to deserve this treatment?
I ask this, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for raising it. Please tell us what the Government can do? I know it is difficult. I do not pretend that the Minister has an easy answer to give. He has not. But if civilisation is to last in this world we must put our minds to seeing how we can prevent such a thing happening. These are not aborigines, wild men. They are peaceful, quiet people. I must admit that in my contact with them I have found them charming and peaceful people. They have been exposed in this manner to utter brutality.
I do not know and I do not think anybody knows what the figures are. But it looks as if almost one-third of the whole population have been brutally murdered. I cannot speak to that and nobody else can, but those are the figures which have been made public. The Government should see that that is understood by the United Nations and that we are prepared to take action to prevent anything like this happening again.
I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord for his remarks. I have tried to express my views and I hope that the Government will try hard to put some worthwhile policy before us today.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, both the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, criticised the United Nations. But the United Nations after all is only the sum total of its members. It is up to us as members of the United Nations to move in the UN for changes in the policy of that organisation, and in particular the policy of recognition of the coalition, which is completely inconsistent with the policy that we follow everywhere else in the world. We did not stop recognising Czechoslovakia when Soviet tanks rolled into Prague. We did not cease to recognise Uganda when the troops of Tanzania liberated that country. We did not suddenly lose sight of Grenada when the Americans invaded it. However, I remember that on that occasion the Prime Minister said that one could not just walk into someone else's country. That is one of the few remarks she has ever made that I agree with. However, that invasion did not mean that we refused to recognise Grenada.
On the other hand, no one could deny that the people of Cambodia were much happier under the Vietnamese occupation than they would have been if Pol Pot had continued. Whatever the motives of the Vietnamese for that invasion, it brought the

823
killings to an end. I believe that we should thank the Vietnamese for having saved the people of Cambodia from an even worse fate than the one they suffered. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, described that fate.
The Vietnamese have now withdrawn. That is universally agreed. The Foreign Secretary and the State Department agree on that. I have no doubt that that can be confirmed without on-site verification by the United States satellite observations. So what is the argument for continuing to withhold recognition from the proper government in Phnom Penh? The Minister for Overseas Development said in another place on 13th November that we supported the resolution drafted by ASEAN on representation in the General Assembly because we believed it right to do so. That was the only explanation the Minister gave. However, she continued by saying that this did not imply that we regarded the coalition government of democratic Kampuchea as the rightful government of Cambodia, as a press notice issued by the UK delegation to the UN on 16th November had stated.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply will explain how an entity can have its credentials recognised as a member of the General Assembly when it is not a state. What kinds of entity in the Government's view are qualified to belong to the United Nations other than states? Can the Minister also tell the House why he thinks that approving the credentials of a person whose hands are stained with the blood of his fellow countrymen, for the representative is a well known associate of the mass murderer, Pol Pot —the noble Lord is aware of that —is likely to help the cause of peace in Cambodia?
Since 1980 United Kingdom policy is said to be that we recognise states and not governments. But the relationship which stems from that recognition is bound to be between governments. Cambodia is a state and we have to decide who governs that state, not whether we approve of them or not. It is not true to say, as the Minister did in the debate on Cambodia the other day in another place, that by reason of this policy we do not have to judge between competing claimants in circumstances of civil war or conflict. We are doing it all the time. There are civil wars in Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and in El Salvador. In every one of these cases we pick the obvious side —that is the side which occupies the capital, or at least most of it in the case of El Salvador, and the side which controls the broadcasting facilities, which administers the larger slice of territory and which controls the national armed forces. Only in the case of Cambodia have we violated those rules for reasons of geopolitics.
Our policy is dangerous because it destabilises the situation in Cambodia and throughout the whole region and helps to create the anarchy which might, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, explained, enable the infamous Pol Pot to return to power. I certainly hope we shall not be given any lectures about following the lead of ASEAN in this matter. One does not think of Indonesia, Singapore or Brunei as being among the world's foremost exponents of democracy. I wish that the mighty force of popular
824
will which is now being manifested in the German Democratic Republic, the Baltic republics, Moldavia and Czechoslovakia had also prevailed in those autocracies. But in the meanwhile let us use some common sense.
The CCDK is dominated by the Khmer Rouge and if the civil war ended in a victory for the rebels they would no doubt eradicate Prince Sihanouk on whom naive Westerners such as Mr. Waldegrave pin their hopes. If there are further peace talks, however, the Prince will continue to act as a ventriloquist's dummy for the Chinese, and their policy has so far always been to back the Khmer Rouge up to the hilt. Either way then support for the coalition means support for the murderers and torturers who massacred as many as 2 million of their fellow countrymen according to some estimates.
The Government claim that they share the universal horror felt about the evil Pol Pot regime. I am sure that is true. But the Prime Minister has said that some parts of the Khmer Rouge constitute a "much, much more reasonable grouping" than Pol Pot's supporters, and that they "would have a part to play in a future government". It is as if one had said after the last war that some factions in the Nazi party were much more reasonable than the hard core followers of Mr. Hitler and if they had only been accomplices and not actual participants in the extermination of 5 million Jews we should now welcome their active role in the government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Government have been challenged on several occasions to give the names of these reasonable persons and have failed to identify a single one of them. Once again I ask the Minister this evening to say who they are if he can. In particular I would like to know whether they include Mr. Thioun Prasith as one of those whom the Prime Minister envisages as being part of a future Cambodian government. He is the person whose seating at the UN we voted for. He was also, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has reminded us, a top official under Pol Pot, one of whose jobs was to lure exiled intellectuals back to Cambodia so that they could be murdered there.
The Government must also realise that aid for any of the so-called non-communist groups means aid for the Khmer Rouge. The aid we give is for the assistance of refugees in the frontier areas who are under the control of the forces in rebellion against the Phnom Penh government. The Khmer Rouge is the largest and most powerful of the groups in military terms. Any help given to other members of the coalition frees resources which are used to bolster the Khmer Rouge itself. As Evans and Rowley said in their Red Brotherhood at War.
"although food aid across the border undoubtedly saved thousands of lives, one of its major consequences was the political revitalisation of the Pol Pot forces".
But it appears that the Government have also been giving military aid to the anti-government forces. Personally I believe the allegations which have been made by Mr. Robert Karniol in Jane's Defence Weekly and which are not denied by the Government that we had been training guerrillas at secret bases in Thailand and helping to create a 250-man sabotage battalion. Mr. Waldegrave shelters behind the rule

825
that governments do not comment on the special forces. So we promote terrorism secretly abroad while condemning it at home. The effect of this immoral policy again is to increase the chances that Pol Pot's reign of terror will be resumed.
First, we need a new policy on Cambodia to match the changes which are taking place everywhere else in the world. That country has been the victim of cold warriors in Beijing and Washington who saw the Vietnamese occupation as an extension of the Soviet sphere of influence in South-East Asia. But now Mr. Gorbachev is reducing the Soviet Union's external commitments in Europe, Africa and Asia and as one of the consequences of that process the Vietnamese have withdrawn from Cambodia. This has removed the excuse the world might have had for boycotting the Hen Sun regime and the first step should be recognition. I know that the noble Lord who is to reply has no power to agree to this but will he at least tell the House whether the British envoy whom we were going to send to Phnom Penh has left yet or, if not, when he will leave? Will he also consider whether we should not make his stay there permanent in the role of a British interests section in one of the foreign embassies in Phnom Penh such as the Indian Embassy so that we can at least have a permanent presence there as we do even in countries such as Iran and Libya where there are British interest sections in other embassies?
Secondly, we should take the lead in raising the blockade of Cambodia which has caused immense suffering to the people of that country and helped the forces of Pol Pot politically. Why is it, I wonder, that in the context of South Africa the Tories assert vehemently that sanctions never work yet in the case of Cambodia they have continued to use this means of promoting a political settlement?
Thirdly, we must ask the Americans and Chinese to stop arming the rebels. There cannot be free and fair elections so long as the civil war continues and the flames of conflict are being fanned by foreign intervention. We hypocritically condemn the Vietnamese while at the same time we are accomplices in the violation of Cambodia's territorial integrity by our own allies.
Fourthly, we should help to achieve a ceasefire, accompanied by liberalisation of the constitution, so as to allow opposition groups the political space in which they can function properly. As has been said, it was indeed a courageous decision of the French to convene an international conference in an attempt to reach a political solution, including an international control mechanism. But that meeting gave the Khmer Rouge undeserved legitimacy by treating them as equal to the other groups which have not included mass murder in their programmes.
I suggest that another attempt be made, this time under the auspices of the Secretary General of the United Nations, to bring together the Hun Sen government and the two other factions. I would further propose that if an interim administration can be formed to include those opposition groups —the non-mass murdering opposition groups —the international community should then give Cambodia military assistance to eliminate the Khmer Rouge. This would surely be more consistent
826
than the Government's policy of saying they are not supporting the Khmer Rouge, yet at the same time that moderate murderers should be let into the government.
Finally, we have to consider the position of some 300,000 refugees living in so-called civilian camps along the border with Thailand and another 50,000 in the so-called "hidden border", the name given to the explicitly militarised camps. The Khmer Rouge are said to control something like 50,000 of those, plus four civilian camps with another 50,000 inhabitants, although the number of combatants is much smaller than that, perhaps no more that 20,000. Frank Judd and Tony Jackson of Oxfam were in Site 8, one of the Khmer Rouge camps, at the beginning of last month, and they reported military activity there as well as the diversion of UN food aid to the Khmer Rouge terrorists. Then there are two camps, including the biggest, Site 2, with 160,000 inhabitants under the control of Son Sann's Kampuchean National Liberation Front, and one under Prince Sihanouk.
The Chinese and the Americans have been pouring arms into the Khmer Rouge as well as food and medicines, and that is how they manage to dominate the coalition and threaten the people of Cambodia with another genocide. Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk are pathetic marionettes, though perhaps they could be brought to life if the outside world gave a firm commitment to the eradication of the Khmer Rouge mass murderers.
In the past the Thai Government turned a blind eye to Chinese military intervention in Cambodia as their half of a bargain. The return for that was that the Chinese refrained from supporting communist subversion in Thailand itself. Thailand had traditionally seen Cambodia as a potential enemy.
But now there is a new situation because the Prime Minister of Thailand has been moving towards an accommodation with Pnomh Penh. Mr. Chatichai was to have visited Washington in November and he has signalled that he would propose a concilatory approach to Vietnam. He suggests that Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk be invited to open peace talks with Hun Sen, thus isolating the Khmer Rouge. That was said to be opposed by the Thai Foreign Minister and elements of the Thai military, who have been doing extremely well by facilitating the transfer of armaments through Thai territory to the Khmer Rouge.
However, Mr. Chatichai also stales that the Chinese endorse the step-by-step approach to peace. If this is really so it transforms the situation since it could open the way towards severing the arteries of subversion which flow down through Thailand to Cambodia. With co-operation between Thailand and China, UN observers could be stationed on the border and the camps totally demilitarised. There could even be the substantial UN peacekeeping force which Prince Sihanouk predicated as an essential condition for him to abandon his alliance with the Khmer Rouge. I recognise that we are unlikely to aim at that result, caught as we are in this country in the time warp of US cold war policies aimed at containing Soviet expansionism and gaining revenge

827
on Vietnam for the defeat it inflicted on the United States.
Unless there is a radical change of policy in Britain and the rest of Europe, however, there is a real danger of a return by Pol Pot and his psychopathic killers. They have already occupied the important town of Pailin and are approaching Battambang, the second largest city in Cambodia. The fear they engender may trigger off new waves of refugees crossing the border into Vietnam and thus stimulating even larger numbers of Vietnamese into leaving for Hong Kong. By refusing a single penny of aid to the de facto government, by giving, on the contrary, both civil and military aid to the coalition and by continuing to insist on a comprehensive solution to the Cambodian problem, we have helped to bring this situation about, and if we do not change our policy now the blood of the people of Cambodia will be on our hands.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I feel in somewhat of a difficulty because he has expressed so well nearly all the points that I had meant to make. I should like to emphasise one of the last points that he made. If the Khmer Rouge make further progress, there will be a flow of refugees into Vietnam and the economic situation there will become worse. There are at the moment something in the region of 50,000 so-called economic refugees in Hong Kong, and we appear in the eyes of the world to be extremely unpopular in suggesting that they be forcibly repatriated. The problem will be a lot worse if the Khmer Rouge step up their activities inside Cambodia.
One point I should like to make to the noble Lord is that this cause is one that is felt by the whole of the British people. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was able to say about Czechoslovakia, "Oh, it is a far away country about which we know little", with the disastrous consequences that that had because he gave that as the reason for our failure to go to its aid. However the world has shrunk, and nearly every living-room in this country knows about Cambodia. Those who go to the movies have seen David Puttnam's magnificent film "The Killing Fields", so they know what it is all about.
Yesterday we had a most moving and eloquent debate about the fate of Nazi war criminals in this country who were involved in the holocaust of 1939–45. The major culprits of that holocaust were dealt with at Nuremberg and other show trials. Hitler himself, we think, met his end in the bunker in Berlin. But in Cambodia 1 million people —possibly 2 million people —were killed out of a population of 10 million or so. The proportion of the population thought to have died varies because there are no figures about the numbers of deaths. It is the equivalent of something like from 8 million to 10 million Britons, or from 10 million to 12 million Germans, or from 30 million to 40 million Russians in proportion to their populations.
The perpetrator of those deaths, Pol Pot, is not only unpunished but lives in comfort in Peking or
828
Thailand, where he has had operations for stones in his kidney, I believe, or other problems that he might have. At the moment I believe that he is actually inside Cambodia, having organised the capture of Pailin. His cronies —I cannot think of a better word for them —form the dominant part of the coalition government that represents Cambodia at the United Nations. As John Pilger has asked: how would we feel if Hitler had not been killed and, while being driven out of Germany, was still representing Germany at the United Nations?
I have not been inside Cambodia, but I have talked at length with others who have. I have twice visited refugee camps just inside Thailand on the Cambodian border. Those camps are supported by either the United Nations High Commission for Refugees or by the United Nations Border Relief Organisation at little or no cost to the Thais; in fact, they are supported at our cost.
The public face which visitors such as myself are shown is very different from the reality. As well as the open camps which can be visited, which are not all that wonderful but some of which are rather well organised and contain a majority of women and children, there are military camps containing irregular troops, the Khmer Rouge being the most numerous, but also the other two factions, one of which I believe we have aided in military training. They all receive arms by a secret route, mainly from China. Nobody denies that. They have made incursions into Cambodia from the camps and are doing so in an increasingly daring way now that the Vietnamese have left.
In John Pilger's film we saw how the Khmer Rouge irregulars raided a village and stole its one, much needed, tractor. Inside Cambodia, in the past 10 years since Pol Pot was driven out by Vietnam, the Hun Sen Government has slowly tried to pick up the pieces. Considering the almost total lack of aid, certainly of official United Nations development aid, they have done remarkably well; but poverty and backwardness are immense, as the John Pilger film showed us. While not elected by ballot, the government have general support and have grown in popularity. They comprise representatives from a wide section of society, including conservatives and members of the former aristocracy. Most families in Cambodia have lost a number of relatives. Even Prince Sihanouk himself has said that he has lost 30 in the Pol Pot era from 1975 to 1979. So Pol Pot and his group are very much feared, and the Hun Sen Government will not agree to any possible interim solution which allows the Khmer Rouge to form part of the holding operation.
As an instance of how humane the government are, Jim Lester, the Conservative Member for Broxtowe, who has spent several weeks on a number of occasions in Cambodia, said:
"Pagodas are being rebuilt and pagoda education is beginning again —hardly the action of a Stalinist Communist government".
This is a de facto government with which we should do business. Certainly, we should at least begin to bring in technical aid. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Prime Minister Chatichai of Thailand has begun a dialogue with Hun Sen stating

829
that his aim is to turn battlefields into market places as part of his "small steps" policy.
We must ask whether the senior Foreign Office official who, with an ODA staff member, is about to visit Phnom Penh will go. I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, here. There was a rumour last week that the mission had been stopped by influence from Washington. What is it, now that the Vietnamese army has withdrawn, that stops us opening up aid and trade, if not yet perhaps conferring diplomatic recognition, with the present government of Cambodia? I suggest that at least to date —and things are changing every week —it is because we do not dare act in defiance of an unwritten edict from an unholy alliance of China and the United States that Vietnam must be punished. China resents their hegemony over South-East Asia being intruded upon by Vietnam. As the noble Lord said, the United States is still smarting from its defeat in Vietnam in 1975.
Until now, China has supported all the members of the so-called coalition, but particularly the Khmer Rouge, which has shown no sign at all that its beliefs have changed in the past 10 years. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that that is the case. I hope that he can perhaps provide some evidence that they have changed, but I have not seen any. As my noble friend said, the Pol Pot regime was a macabre version of the cultural revolution in China.
The Minister will probably deny that our actions are in any way influenced either by China or the position in Hong Kong, 1997, or secret undertakings with the United States. However, many will agree with the 18 distinguished Oxford academics who wrote a joint letter to the Guardian on 30th November which stated:
"As one member of the UN Security Council untainted by historical or colonial ties with Cambodia, Britain is in a unique position to effect a catalytic change in current Western policy…it is still possible to chart a new course in British policy towards Cambodia. At the very least, we should press Britain to emulate Sweden's recent move at the UN and disassociate herself entirely from support for the opposition 'Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea' (CGDK), nominally led by Prince Sihanouk which is, in fact, a cloak for Khmer Rouge".
Prince Sihanouk is a prisoner of the Khmer Rouge and has written an autobiography with that title. The academics went on to say:
"Whatever little we can do as individuals must be done. Time is running out for the Cambodian people. We must act now to prevent a return to the insanity of year Zero and the Killing Fields".
A similar sentiment was expressed in the open letter to the Independent of the the same day from 60 distinguished people, some of whose names have been read out. Their letter was addressed to our Prime Minister, the President of the United States and President Mitterrand of France. Its final paragraph states:
"Our countries, all three linked with Southeast Asia by the weight of history, and how heavy that is, have the duty to give Cambodia the urgent assistance that alone can safeguard it".
8.58 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on his initiative in raising the debate tonight. Although
830
few of us on both sides of the House have been involved, all those who have spoken so far have shown their deep interest in the subject. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the skilful and emotive way in which he spelled out to us the appalling actions of the Khmer Rouge over such a long period of time and the dangers involved in allowing them to come back to govern Cambodia again, whether on their own or as part of another government.
I know Cambodia quite well. I have known it for over 25 years. Like my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I had the privilege and the luck to see some of the ancient civilisation in Cambodia in that I visited and spent some time in the ruins of Angkor back in the 1960s and visited the country on many occasions. I knew Prince Sihanouk and saw Cambodia when it was governed by him and a very happy, contented place it was in spite of the fighting that went on in the surrounding countries. I also knew Lon Nol after the fall of Prince Sihanouk. I was with Lon Nol in Phnom Penh when the city was surrounded by Khmer Rouge, carrying out the same task as my noble friend who will reply to the debate as Minister in the Foreign Office responsible for our relations with Cambodia. Such was the battle that was going on at the time in Phnom Penh that we could not move outside the boundaries of the city. While I was there my wife spent most of her time visiting the wounded in hospital. So I know a little about the background of the Cambodian fighting.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken this evening I share the horror and shock at the massacres which have taken place at the hands of the Khmer Rouge murderers led by Pol Pot. There is nothing further that I wish to add this evening. We have had quite a long debate and wish to hear the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I agree not with everything but a great deal of what he said.
I think all noble Lords were affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, commented, by the debate in this Chamber on the subject of war crimes which took place during the last world war, a debate that most of us attended. The horrors in Cambodia quite outweigh those which took place in Western Europe 45 years ago. I was in Europe at the end of the war. I saw Belsen. I saw the camp which I visited just after the war finished. I saw what Hitler and the Nazis had done. But the record of what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge have done in Cambodia is as bad if not worse than that of the Nazi regime 45 to 50 years ago.
There is no quick solution. I believe that most noble Lords recognise that a coalition led by Prince Sihanouk and a mixed bag of people who have particular interests, none of them in line with the Khmer Rouge, cannot solve the problem. We tried it with the support of ASEAN and with negotiations in Paris but it has failed.
As was indicated by other noble Lords this afternoon, the time has come for my noble friend the Minister of State and the Government to think again very carefully. We cannot continue to be

831
perceived to be supporting a Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge operation in Cambodia. Rightly or wrongly that is how we are perceived at the moment. I realise that Her Majesty's Government, to their great credit, have already signalled a move away from the policies that we have conducted over the past couple of years. The Government appear to have stressed the need for aid to Cambodians in Cambodia as well as to refugees on the border. That is a great step forward.
Secondly, they are now at last putting a question mark over the issue of UN accreditation of the Khmer Rouge, although I share the views of other noble Lords who are bewildered as to why Her Majesty's Government voted as they did at the United Nations earlier this autumn. Thirdly, we appear to be the first Western country to have undertaken to dispatch a diplomat and an ODA official, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others earlier in the debate. I also should like to hear that that mission is now going ahead.
At the end of October 1989 in a leading article The Times said:
"There is a case for short-circuiting the niceties of diplomacy, and recognising the Phnom Penh regime without waiting for a comprehensive political solution. Mr. Hun Sen's government is not a pleasant one. It holds political prisoners and has little time for free speech and multi-party politics. But it has begun religious and economic reforms, encouraging private businesses and allowing farmers to own their land. It has adopted a policy of non-alignment, and it would no longer be accurate to dismiss Mr. Hun Sen as Hanoi's puppet".
By giving careful consideration and thought to recognising and supporting the present regime which is now in Phnom Pen, it seems to me that there is now a case for us to start putting in aid to stimulate the economy of Cambodia and to deprive the Khmer Rouge of the ability to murder the population of Cambodia for a second time. I hope that my noble friend the Minister of State who is responsible under the Secretary of State for our policy toward Cambodia will indeed think again.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, as all previous speakers have said, I too am very grateful to my noble friend for having introduced this extremely important subject and for having done so in his usual very robust fashion. There is no doubt that it is an unusually opportune moment to choose, as Britain's policy over Cambodia has for some time been questionable and lately has even been seen as indefensible. My noble friend and other noble Lords have described the situation. There is very little that I can add. They have highlighted the fear of a return to power of the Khmer Rouge and have stressed the need for Britain and other countries to challenge the right of the so-called coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea to a seat in the United Nations. That is of the most urgent importance.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I believe that the fact that Hun Sen's Phnom Penh government was previously backed by Vietnam should not disqualify it from being judged objectively at the present time. It is important to understand the full extent of the Khmer Rouge
832
strength, lodged as it is in the legal, political, diplomatic and military framework of the country.
For instance, from a legal point of view, since 1975 the Khmer Rouge have held legal title to the United Nations' seat as Democratic Kampuchea, which is the name given to the country by the Khmer Rouge. But, from a political point of view, the key coalition activity is foreign affairs. The coalition's foreign minister is the Khmer Rouge leader who, as head of state of Democratic Kampuchea from 1976–1978, presided over the mass killings. The Khmer Rouge control coalition foreign policy. From a diplomatic point of view, all top coalition ambassadors are Khmer Rouge appointees. The coalition ambassador to the UN was a top Khmer Rouge official during the killing fields years. So the Khmer Rouge control coalition diplomacy.
Finally, from a military point of view, the Khmer Rouge have by far the strongest armed forces in the coalition. Those are tangible facts. They should be kept very much in mind when considering our attitude to the situation in Cambodia. Allowing this coalition to sit at the UN adds a macabre twist to the tragedy of Cambodia. The occupation of that seat enables the killers, the Khmer Rouge, to represent their victims and to give themselves a direct say in the future of the country that they themselves have devastated. It also prevents the United Nations from undertaking a peace-keeping role and places the UN in the invidious role of supporting Khmer Rouge forces in the border camps —a situation that has been confirmed by aid organisations such as Oxfam.
Incredibly, bodies such as the UN seem either ignorant or indifferent to the Khmer Rouge hegemony within the coalition. That was reflected in the resolution debated on 16th and 17th November, which talked of the "continued and effective struggle" of the forces under the "leadership" of Prince Sihanouk and endorsed the so-called "coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea" by 124 votes to 17 with 12 abstentions. The British ambassador abstained and presumably was ordered not to speak. It is amazing to think that the opportunity was not taken by the British Government to press a position.
A press release was issued later stating that Her Majesty's Government had never given support to the Khmer Rouge and would do all in their power to prevent the Khmer Rouge returning. But surely that is contradicted by the Government's support for the Khmer Rouge dominated coalition.
It is right to point out that the European Parliament has raised its voice and has urged the 12 EC members and the United States to isolate the Khmer Rouge and to recognise the Cambodian Government. It has said that EC policy must be to re-establish the independence of the country and to remove Pol Pot. That was reported in the Guardian on 24th November. A strongly worded joint resolution included a statement deploring the fact the Western governments have refused to support the expulsion of Khmer Rouge representatives from the UN. The economic reforms and the political relaxation developed by those in power in Phnom

833
Penh in recent months are welcomed. There are many other very strongly worded resolutions in the paper.
Obviously the concern of the European Parliament is a major factor in persuading China to move away from its previous policy of unqualified support for the Khmer Rouge. This has been manifested in China's emerging support for the peace proposals put forward by the Prime Minister of Thailand. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, those involve a step by step solution to the conflict, an international body to monitor the ceasefire, renewed peace talks and a cessation of military aid to all parties. It would be useful to know whether the British Government will be backing these proposals.
As President of UNICEF, I should like to say a word about the human background to this cruel and intractable situation. First, the result of America's total embargo on Cambodia has been absolutely catastrophic. American pressure led to the Cambodian Government being excluded from the UN and its development fund, from the World Health Organisation and indeed from a host of other international bodies. Now British aid to Cambodia stands at £402,000 for the year 1988–89. This comprises £100,000 to FAO/World Food programmes and £250,000 to UNICEF programmes. Obviously, UNICEF is very pleased that the Government have given this modest sum. It has worked in Cambodia since the emergency in 1979. Of course we stress that the policy of Cambodia is one of universal free health care. But, as it has no money, no equipment, no medicine and no doctors, it cannot bring this policy into effect.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two of the most horrifying statistics. UNICEF works mainly with women and children. During Pol Pot's regime, 190,000 children were orphaned or abandoned. Only 2 per cent. of rural populations have access to clean water. It is the poorest provision anywhere in the world. In 1980 the figures for child mortality were 330 per 1,000 live births. That again was the highest child mortality rate in the world. That is what Pol Pot left behind him. Happily, the figure is now down to 199 per 1,000 live births. Therefore the position has improved. But what a terrible thought that it might slip back if the situation reverted to what it was.
I conclude with some questions. I reiterate the question that all noble Lords have put to the Minister. It is to ask him to confirm that a diplomatic mission will take place. Can the Minister also say whether we shall be encouraging our European partners to send a similar delegation? Indeed, it is important to know whether our delegation will attend, because rumours indicate that it may not.
With reference to the concern expressed by aid agencies such as Oxfam about UN food aid being used to support Khmer Rouge troops, can the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring an immediate end to the practice? Can he say whether the Government will demand the establishment of neutral refugee camps, given the emerging evidence that many refugees are being held in Khmer Rouge camps against their will?
834
In view of Cambodia's urgent need for development aid, will the Government press the United Nations to send a development mission to Cambodia? Finally, given the fact that the Government now accept that Vietnam has withdrawn its troops, will they urge the United States and our European partners to remove all sanctions on Cambodia and Vietnam and to provide development aid to those countries? Does the Minister agree that a Khmer Rouge victory will result in a massive escalation in the number of refugees entering Hong Kong? That situation is already extremely precarious and could become even more grave.
There is unequivocal evidence to show that events are moving towards a repetition of the atrocities in Cambodia and have added new words to the world's political dictionary. The West, including this country, is missing important opportunities to isolate the Khmer Rouge, to avert the repetition of such a disaster and to do everything possible to bring about free elections in Cambodia. Surely we must not shirk such an important humanitarian issue. We look forward to hearing the Minister say that we will not do so.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the tragic situation in Cambodia, and the efforts of the international community to promote peace and stability there in order at long last to bring to an end the sufferings of the Cambodian people have rightly been a focus of concern in recent weeks. I am therefore also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for providing this opportunity for the House to debate this important question today. I am also grateful to him for agreeing to carry over the debate from the last Session. As he noted during our debate on the humble Address, the time is now right for us to take stock.
Before I turn to the current situation and the way ahead for Cambodia, noble Lords may find it helpful if I give a brief account of recent developments. Noble Lords may know that in July and August of this year my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary and I attended the International Peace Conference on Cambodia in Paris. The purpose of this conference was to put in place a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Cambodian problem. The conference made a good start and there were encouraging signs that a political settlement might be possible. All the nations participating in the conference accepted a framework for agreeing a ceasefire, the operation of an international control mechanism, an end to the supply of arms and foreign intervention in Cambodia, the return of displaced persons and refugees and the implementation of national reconciliation with the setting up of a quadripartite interim authority under the leadership of Prince Norodom Sihanouk.
Ultimately, however, the conference failed on the key issue of power sharing among the four Cambodian factions during the interim period between internationally supervised Vietnamese troop withdrawal and free and fair elections. It is,

835
of course, regrettable that those countries directly concerned —notably China, Vietnam and the USSR—failed to persuade the factions to compromise. But it is important to remember that the conference stands only suspended and can be reconvened when conditions are right. Meanwhile the French and Indonesian co-chairmen of the conference have undertaken to pursue consultations with participants in the conference.
Since the conference, the Vietnamese Government have claimed that it withdrew all its forces from Cambodia by its self-imposed deadline of 26th September. As I indicated in my written reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on 8th November, we accept that Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units from Cambodia. Withdrawal is an important and welcome step in the right direction. But the Vietnamese withdrawal remains unverified, and verification can take place only as part of a comprehensive political settlement, under UN supervision and control. Nor does our acceptance of the withdrawal of Vietnam's combat units absolve Vietnam of its duty to contribute to a political settlement.
We have no conclusive reports of the current military situation in Cambodia. But it is clear that the factions are engaged along the Thai border and that the resistance has taken up positions inside Cambodia. This makes it all the more important to bring the factions back to the negotiating table as soon as possible to prevent further suffering and bloodshed.
Our commitment to Cambodia has been strong and consistent. Our first priority has always been the restoration of peace and stability to a country torn apart by years of war. These are the only circumstances in which the people of Cambodia will be free to elect a government of their own choosing. Just as we made it clear that an end to Vietnam's military occupation of Cambodia was an essential step towards a neogitated settlement, so we still believe that there can be no solution to Cambodia's problems while interfactional war prolongs the country's misery. There can be no military answer to the country's difficulties.
The horror and disgust we all feel at the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge during the horrific rule of Pol Pot from 1975 to 1979 have come through fully in the passion with which noble Lords have spoken this evening. The Government share this outrage and passion. Our abhorrence of the murderous Pol Pot and his associates is clearly on record, as is our determination that there should be no place for these men in Cambodia's future. I am glad to re-affirm that now. We have no wish to see the Khmer Rouge return to power in Cambodia, and have never given, and will never give, support or assistance of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.
A comprehensive political settlement offers the most realistic route towards allowing the Cambodian people to decide their own future. But it requires compromise by all those directly involved. Above all, the Cambodian factions themselves must be brought to understand that they can never achieve
836
their aims on the battlefield, but only through negotiation. The supply of arms to the factions must cease, from whatever quarter they come. Vietnam must meet its responsibilities by helping to clear up the mess to which it has made so infamous a contribution. Those of us not directly involved in the conflict must continue to do what we can to encourage and support efforts towards peace, contributing ideas and practical help.
It is clear that the vast majority of the international community share this view. This year's UN General Assembly resolution on Cambodia attracted more support than ever before: we were among 79 co-sponsors; the resolution was adopted with a record majority of 124 countries in favour. It was a good resolution. It took account of the announced withdrawal of Vietnamese troops but did not ignore the fact that the former Vietnamese occupation was a major cause of the current situation in Cambodia. It made clear that a return to the abhorrent practices of the Khmer Rouge would be totally unacceptable. It gave wholehearted support to the principle of a comprehensive negotiated settlement over a military solution. And it paid tribute to the value of recent diplomatic efforts to achieve a breakthrough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to our ambassador at the United Nations. He was not instructed to abstain in the General Assembly debate on Cambodia. On the contrary, we not only voted for the resolution but, as I have just mentioned, we were among its co-sponsors. Although we did not speak in the debate, we stood fully behind the EC president's statement which was made by France on behalf of all 12 member states. We endorsed that with a press statement following the debate. I shall be very happy to show the noble Baroness a copy of that statement, should she wish to see it.
Baroness Ewart Biggs: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell me on what date the debate and the statement were made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the resolution was the United Nations resolution. The statement was made on 16th November.
There has been much discussion about the matter of Cambodia's seat at the United Nations. Noble Lords will know that for this year the issue was settled on 17th October when the General Assembly adopted, without a vote, the report of the UN's credentials committee for the forthcoming year. However, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development stated in another place on 13th November, we shall have to return to the question of who occupies Cambodia's seat at a future session of the United Nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred particularly to the occupation of the UN seat, and raised a number of legal and technical points of UN procedure. It is because of the complexities that there is the credentials committee of the UN on which we do not sit. Its recommendations are put before the UN membership each year. Since 1982 there has been no formal challenge; that is to say, no vote on this issue by the United Nations. I say

837
to my noble friend Lord Fanshawe that this is quite a separate issue to that of the resolution to which I have just referred.
However, our longstanding position on this legal and technical matter in no way implies readiness to deal with the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea as a government, much less support the Khmer Rouge. Our UN representative makes our position clear each year when the General Assembly discusses the credentials committee's report. I should add —and say to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, particularly —that the occupation of Cambodia's UN seat by the CGDK does not prevent United Nations agencies from operating inside Cambodia and contributing to humanitarian relief there. UNICEF, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred, the world food programme and the UNHCR are all active inside Cambodia. A team from the UNDP has also produced a needs assessment study for Cambodia and hopes in due course to examine the situation inside Cambodia in more detail.
Now that the General Assembly debate has taken place, and with the authority conferred by the resolution, the international community must continue to look ahead for ways of restoring peace in Cambodia and of bringing relief to the suffering of a war torn people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Experienced people who have been there to try to witness what is happening think we are getting the worst of both worlds. There is help being provided for Cambodia, but it is being stolen by Pol Pot's lieutenants. That must be the worst of all possible worlds. Aid to the ordinary people is not reaching them. It is being used by their murderers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the aid given to the camps on the border, to which I was about to refer. As I indicated in my Written Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, we are making a practical commitment to Cambodia. We have already provided large amounts of humanitarian relief: £13.7 million since 1979 for the displaced Cambodians in camps along the Thai-Cambodian border. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that we have stipulated to the United Nations Border Relief Operation (UNBRO) that none of the funds we contribute for humanitarian relief to the civilian population of the camps along the border should go to the Khmer Rouge. UNBRO has assured us that this condition is observed. Of course the only failsafe way for us to guarantee that nothing we provide reaches the Khmer Rouge in any form would be to cut off our humanitarian relief altogether. I am sure that that is a move which would be advocated by very few people.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter addressed by Mr. Frank Judd and his colleagues from Oxfam to the Prime Minister in which he says that he actually saw food aid which was given by the United Nations in the possession of the Khmer Rouge in one of their camps?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I only hope —and I am assured by the United Nations —that it is not aid provided by the United Kingdom Government. That is the reassurance we have sought and received from the United Nations. As I say, the only way to guarantee that 100 per cent. would be to stop giving any aid on the border at all.
We also gave £750,000 last year for humanitarian assistance inside Cambodia. In addition, we are now committing a further £250,000 to UNICEF and we have invited the non-governmental organisations to submit proposals for further humanitarian projects in Cambodia under the joint funding scheme. As noble Lords said, we are backing this up with a visit to Cambodia by two British officials, one from our embassy in Bangkok and the other an ODA expert, who will see for themselves what scope there may be for a further expansion of our humanitarian aid programme and discuss the situation with aid workers there. I can assure noble Lords that those officials will be going inside Cambodia before the end of the year. I hope that that answers a number of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on that point.
As for a political settlement in Cambodia, ultimately it must be for the Cambodian people themselves to decide the form of their future government. There is clearly a role for an interim authority enjoying wide confidence, both in Cambodia and internationally, to bridge the gap between the end of military activity and the holding of fair and free elections. A number of suggestions for the composition of the authority have been made, including Prince Sihanouk's proposal for a quadripartite interim administration involving those Khmer Rouge figures which the other factions can accept but clearly not Pol Pot and his associates.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked who were these people. It is not for us or any other outsiders to draw up a list of which Khmer Rouge individuals the other factions might be able to work with. That is fundamentally for the Cambodians themselves to reach agreement on. That was the plan that was part of the Paris conference.
Great controversy surrounds the issue of what, if any, role the Khmer Rouge should play during the interim period. Let me state once again, if any doubts still persist, that we hold no brief for the Khmer Rouge. If the transition from war to peace and democratic elections can, in the judgment of those directly involved, be made without Khmer Rouge participation, we shall be the last to object. But it will not help Cambodia if some temporary solution is cobbled together which leaves the Khmer Rouge on the loose, with its arms supplies from China, its odious leadership intact and its hostility to the country and her people unabated.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and other noble Lords called eloquently for more international action to help Cambodia. I am glad to report that there are encouraging signs of renewed diplomatic activity and fresh ideas pointing towards reconciliation and compromise. The Thai Prime Minister, General Chatichai, has been pursuing helpful contacts with the Cambodian factions in an attempt to find

839
common ground as a basis for a return to the negotiating table.
Two other recent proposals are particularly promising. The Indonesian Foreign Minister has suggested an informal meeting within the framework of the Paris conference. We hope that any such meeting might make sufficient progress to justify reconvening the full Paris conference, which remains the most likely forum for agreement of a settlement in Cambodia. The second proposal, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred, for an interim administration in Cambodia controlled by the United Nations, has come from the Australian Foreign Minister. This is an ambitious idea, as the Australians themselves admit. But it is an attractive suggestion which we and others concerned for the restoration of peace in Cambodia have welcomed and believe is worth pursuing.
Britain will continue to play its full part in encouraging reconciliation and agreement between
840
the Cambodian factions. With our friends and partners we are convinced that a return to the negotiating table is becoming more urgent, both to bring the warfare inside Cambodia to an end and to secure long-term peace and stability. We are already pursuing this objective with our fellow permanent members of the Security Council and in the European Community, as well as in our bilateral contacts with those concerned.
The Cambodian people, like all others, have the right to determine their own future, and to be free from foreign domination and from fears of a return to the carnage and madness of the Pol Pot years. We shall continue to do all we can, and to support all efforts by others more closely involved, to bring those freedoms to the people of Cambodia.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.