Food Production Policy

HL Deb 01 March 1989 vol 504 cc1046-85

3.8 p.m.

Lord Gallacher rose to call attention to the case for a coherent policy for food production which will give assurance to consumers about quality and safety and allow them more say in determining food policy; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first acknowledge that the present supply position of food is one which enables consumers to have an ample supply of food, a varied supply, a supply which is on the whole safe, and a supply which is innovative, both in respect of home production and imports. Having paid that tribute perhaps I may also say that I do not regard the present supply position as being in all respects perfect. It never could be, given the diversity of the operation.

In my opinion, many improvements could be made as regards the supply not least in the area of livestock marketing. Why then, noble Lords may ask, the Motion before the House this afternoon? It is basically because of the recent serious scares about eggs, soft cheese and cooked chilled foods, plus the alarming statistics now before us regarding the increase in cases of food poisoning. In addition, there is also the undoubted changing scene with regard to food supply, the revised common agricultural policy structures, a demand by consumers for organic produce, which is in part due to previous endeavours flowing from the common agricultural policy, the development of biotechnological activity in agriculture, already significant and capable of even greater significance given the opportunity; the dominance of the home market as regards the manufacture of foodstuffs by a mere seven companies; and the dominance of the retail market by five major retailers who, it is estimated, have 50 per cent. of the market in their hands. The consumers are also concerned as to whether or not a further increase in imports which may flow from the completion of the internal market in 1992 will increase concern about food safety, on the assumption that the inspection of foodstuffs is in some way made easier at that time in order to expedite the completion of the market.

I think too, in consideration of a Motion of this kind, we need to apprise ourselves of the present responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health for food safety. My best advice is that composition and quality are the responsibility of the Department of Health; microbiology and food hygiene are with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Food-borne illness of animal origin—a very important subject at the present time—is MAFF's responsibility. MAFF of course is the sponsor Ministry for food producers, processors, retailers and it also looks after consumer interests in food. One needs to ask oneself, given that spread of responsibility, whether the consumer as such is directly involved in the affairs of the Ministry of Agriculture in the same way as are the other interests for which MAFF acts as direct sponsor.

Having detailed the area of responsibility, we ask ourselves, "What about the relationships between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health?" I have personal experience of this area and speak from the heart. In my estimate the relationships between these two significant departments of state are good when the weather is fair, but much less than good when the weather is stormy, this fortunately on a few occasions only.

That situation stems in part from the different assessments they make of the degrees of risk associated with stormy weather. The medical view predominates as regards the Department of Health; other considerations—including commercial aspects—influence MAFF's approach to problems. They seldom make joint public statements during periods when advice to consumers is vitally necessary. As a consequence of that, the absence of a joint statement results in confusion in the minds of consumers. We have had particular instances of that in recent days as regards eggs and soft cheese. The inability to agree on a joint attitude to problems has on occasion even led Ministers astray. I think it is important that we should acknowledge that fact, having regard to events in the recent past.

Today in another place there was published the First Report of the Agriculture Committee on Salmonella in Eggs, available at high noon and read avidly by me, in the hope of finding something in it that might be useful to mention in your Lordships' debate this afternoon. I think that the report is well balanced. Inevitably it contains criticisms of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on various counts. But mainly it criticises delays on the part of that Ministry in dealing with the situation as regards salmonella in eggs. It also in part criticises Ministers at the Department of Health. I do not wish to develop the report because it is not our property, and in any case those who are criticised by it will no doubt in time reply to it. Nevertheless, it emphasises the point which needs to be made at the very outset of the debate this afternoon, that during stormy weather these two Ministries must learn to act together. The first request I have to make of the Minister is: can she give us an assurance that in the future that will be done?

Hygiene is a vital aspect of food safety, acknowledged as such by most people. Hygiene extends here not merely to the home but to shops, to caterers, to processors and indeed to farms themselves. We on this dide of the House are grateful for the joint decision by MAFF and the Department of Health announced last week to establish a committee on microbiological safety of food and such matters as the committee considers necessary. We are especially grateful for the fact that, in making the announcement, the Minister was able to say in another place that consumers and environmental health officers would have representation on that committee. This question is of such urgency, and yet the nature of the inquiry so great that one wonders whether consideration will be given as a matter of urgency to the issuing by the committee of an interim report, if this should be considered necessary.

There is an EC dimension to all this. The Minister's right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture referred on 20th January last to what he described as five key umbrella directives at different stages of preparation for 1992. Your Lordships' Select Committee has reported on certain of these, taking particular note in the reports of consumer views and enforcement problems; for example, the directive on the official inspection of foodstuffs. Perhaps in this connection I may ask whether I am right in assuming that a draft framework directive not already before us is expected soon on food hygiene, based on a submission to the Commission of the Community by the consumer co-operative movement in Britain. Does the Minister of Agriculture favour a Commission directive on food hygiene? Will account be taken of pending Community action as regards food hygiene in current United Kingdom activity on the matter, particularly as regards the publicity campaign on hygiene which has already been announced?

The enforcement of food safety law is of great importance in this whole area. Indeed, one might say that it is the key factor even now and will certainly be greater in the future. Environmental health officers have an essential part to play in protecting consumers at the manufacturing and retail food stages of the chain. How well resourced are environmental health officers who are employed by local authorities? Are their overall responsibilities as environmental health officers not too divided? How effective is the liaison between them and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health? Are training schemes for environmental health officers adequate and available?

Here I refer the House to a letter which appeared in The Times newspaper on 26th January 1989 from Mr. A. Archer, a past president of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. The letter said: There is a nationwide shortage of environmental health officers, the result of the short-sighted policy in recent years of closing down university courses offering the appropriate degree qualification. The net result is that few local authorities are able to implement even the existing legislation". Can this be regarded as safe and satisfactory for consumers? Can a service so undermanned cope with the added responsibilities which a new food Act, five umbrella directives and a single internal market for food for 12 member states will bring in 1992?

It is acknowledged that food research has a major role to play in safety, the evaluation of new processes and innovations as regards food. Given that acceptance, we must recognise that consumers are affected by MAFF's proposal to reduce spending on what is described as "near market" agricultural research, particularly those areas in which problems have recently flared. What are the criteria for defining "near market"? Having decided, how is it proposed to transfer such research to others? For example, will trade associations be asked to take over and finance such research for the collective good of their members? If not, are individual firms to be approached, and by whom? If it is to be single companies, will not those companies insist on projects giving them commercial advantage before they are prepared to fund them?

Can the Government —really be satisfied with this position? The Agricultural and Food Research Council is certainly consulted in all this, but decisions to close research projects are MAFF's alone. Can consumers not be assured of a stay of execution, where food safety is a constituent part of any research project and indeed a reconsideration of present policy here?

If the object of this policy is a reduction in expenditure by the Ministry, and if consumers were asked how that might be avoided, I think that, if they had a voice, they might say to the Government that savings could be effected. They would give as an example of where savings might be effected the recent decision to write off intervention stocks of food by the Community. Those stocks are so vast that the Community's budget can stand the write-off only if it is spread over four years. If that alone is not sufficient to continue funding of vital research, fraud under the common agricultural policy, if checked, would go a long way towards solving the Ministry's problems in these areas.

As regards the influence of the consumer, the Ministry of Agriculture says that it has an open door. We accept that, but we believe that consumers need a right of input into the Ministry. The National Consumer Council study entitled Food Policy and the Consumer, which was published in June 1988, acknowledged the effort made by the official Opposition in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Agriculture Act 1986 to persuade the Government to appoint a consumers' food committee as a replacement committee for the consumers' committee for Great Britain which was established under the agricultural marketing Acts. That body asked to be replaced because of the limitations imposed on marketing boards by the European Community.

That body's suggestion was embodied by the Opposition in amendments tabled during the passage of the legislation. We sought a replacement committee with a wider remit; that is to say, we sought a remit to take over existing marketing Act duties, but in addition a remit to be entitled to give views to agricultural ministers, either on request or on its own initiative. The amendment, in this House at least, attracted all-party support. The Minister described the amendment as: interesting and casting new light on the Bill".

The Minister accepted that one F in MAFF stood for food. He said consultation already took place, for example, with consumer organisations on annual price reviews under the common agricultural policy. But he stated that MAFF relied mostly on the work of the Food Advisory Committee for guidance on consumer affairs. The terms of reference of the Food Advisory Committee concern matters referred to it by Ministers relating to composition, labelling and advertising of food, as well as additives, contaminants and other substances which are or may be present in food. The committee is a worthy body whose members have a scientific background in keeping with the terms of reference. Since 1988 the agendas of the Food Advisory Committee's meetings have been published in advance and comments invited on them from certain organisations.

We are grateful for this opening up of the work of the Food Advisory Committee. But a perusal of its agendas shows the technical natures of the matters referred to it by Ministers, which form the basis of advice that the committee is able to give Ministers. There is still a need for a consumer food committee as advocated by us in 1986 and endorsed by the National Consumer Council. That need is even greater in the light of very recent events. MAFF's attitude to consumers is best described as paternal. We ask whether paternity is adequate under modern conditions, as I have briefly tried to describe them. Does a paternal attitude do justice to consumers generally? In our view it does not.

What legislative opportunities exist now for a change of attitude by the Ministry of Agriculture, assuming that it is willing to change its attitude? After wide consultation a new food law is in immediate prospect to replace the consolidation measure in the 1984 Act, much of which relates to conditions of the past. Therefore, that measure bears no relationship to the problems which now confront us. Will the new law take account of recent food problems? If it does, it can be said without qualification that the Opposition will support and expedite any Bill that would bring effect to such changes.

However, at the same time I am bound to give notice to the Ministry that we will insist again this time round on the establishment of a consumers' food committee along the lines advocated by us in 1986, or an equivalent organisation. if a new food Bill appears in the next Session of Parliament or even in this Session of Parliament, that request should be seriously considered. The Ministry should set up a consumers' food committee on its own initiative rather than do so as a result of changes made to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House.

We see in all this a challenge for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be seen as a Ministry where consumer interests dominate. Any failure by the Ministry to meet this challenge will produce changes which are not necessarily in the best long-term interests of consumers. We believe that the Motion before your Lordships' House gives this House an opportunity to discuss this matter today. On that basis it is with much pleasure that I beg to move for Papers.

3.25 p.m.

Lord Kimball

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in opening this debate, has at least confirmed to all of us the importance which we all attach to the continuation of the Ministry of Agriculture. He may have put down a challenge about its future, but everything he has said today has emphasised the point that the Ministry of Agriculture is the most important Ministry in this field. However, the Ministry of Agriculture may have found that the Department of Health has been a somewhat fair weather friend over the past three months. We are having this debate to discuss food production, quality and safety. We are having it at a time when it is an ominous fact that the global production of cereals has declined in the past two years for the first time since 1945.

The world's buffer stocks of cereals have never been lower. In Europe the beef and butter mountains have gone. Cereal production is being cut back, and even the wine lake has dried up. The world is on the brink of experiencing for the first time all the signs of a climatic change which will have a major effect on food production throughout the civilised world. There is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of many of us on this side of the House, of the importance to England and Wales of maintaining the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland with overall responsibility for food production from the time a seed is sown to consumption, and in the field of animal welfare from the time an animal is conceived to sale and slaughter.

In the early part of this year, in January, many of us were concerned at the comments in the farming press and the trade press as a whole about the future of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was even suggested that we might see some of the functions moved to the Department of the Environment and put under a Minister of State for rural affairs in the Department of the Environment, and that agricultural production and food might be moved to the Department of Trade and Industry.

I hope that during this year when we celebrate food and farming, 100 years of the Ministry of Agriculture and 150 years of the Royal Agricultural Society, my noble friend will impress on her right honourable friend that this is the moment to say categorically that we on this side of the House support the continuation of the present Ministry of Agriculture with all its functions and powers. After all, we face a situation at the moment when there is a certain feeling in the countryside that much of the representation in another place from the country constituencies is not as rural-based as it used to be in the old days. A firm assurance about the future of the Ministry of Agriculture would do an awful lot to allay the fears that are now being expressed.

Various political central offices seem to be very attached to endless statistics which do not prove very much. They are very attached to saying that the number of people in the English constituencies who earn their living either directly or indirectly from agriculture is a minute proportion of any constituency's makeup. But what these statistics do not show is that the leadership, the balanced views and the commonsense of any English constituency come from the agricultural community—the people who lead their lives close to nature and who really understand what things are about. Over the past six weeks or so we have suffered from a lot of attention from the media on the role of the Ministry of Agriculture and the need to take action to deal with the so-called hazards in food production.

I think it significant that even the Consumers' Association, in Which and in its evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place, was very positive in its view that food hygiene should remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and that UK standards of food hygiene should be enforced throughout Europe. There is a particular problem in relation to food imported into this country from Italy and Greece, for example, where food hygiene standards leave a lot to be desired.

I believe that it is important that everyone should be given adequate information about the food they buy and about foods imported into this country. There may well be a case for the Ministry of Agriculture having the kind of additional powers in relation to European imports which the United States' Food and Drug Administration has.

There is a great demand at present for safeguards and for higher standards of food production. That is reflected in an increased demand for the services of the veterinary profession. Unless steps are taken in Great Britain that demand will be satisfied by foreign students from Europe, particularly after 1992 when they will have the freedom to practise here. It is of great concern that countries such as Spain and Portugal, which have a very low standard of animal husbandry and whose veterinary standards are not high are at present expanding the veterinary schools at their universities in order to take advantage of the gap that they see appearing in this country.

In relation to food hygiene and veterinary education we are faced with the Riley report to the University Grants Committee. That is an out-of-date report based on a false premise. It was commissioned some time ago when the University Grants Committee was trying to find a way of reducing expenditure and thought that the six veterinary schools were an easy target. The committee did not take into account the enormous demand from the public for proper veterinary inspection of all our food and animal products.

I hope that as a result of this debate today my noble friend will make firm representations to the Department of Education and Science that the University Grants Committee should be urged to reject the recommendations of the Riley report for the closure of the Glasgow veterinary school and, even worse, the suggested closure of the Cambridge veterinary school. I suspect that, since she comes from that part of the world, that is written on her heart like Calais.

It is a terrible fact that in the whole of 1988 no fewer than 295 graduates were brought into this country to practise food and veterinary inspection. In the first two months of this year no fewer than 91 foreigners were brought into this country to do a job which Englishmen—and Scotsmen—could do. There is a genuine case for expanding veterinary education in this country, and not cutting it back, in order to meet the demand of the people of this country for proper inspection of their foodstuffs.

I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the Cambridge Veterinary Trust. Owing to the magnificent efforts of my predecessor, Sir John Astor, we have raised voluntary contributions in excess of £1 million for a new cancer treatment unit for small mammals. The first sod has been turned in the ground. However, for the time being we have had to stop work on the project and on the new building.

It is no good inspecting food and controlling pesticides, fertilisers and the amount of nitrogen that we put onto the countryside unless we give greater backing to the campaign which the Ministry of Agriculture started in 1980. I thought that that was a most important campaign. I think that it was called "Look at the Label".

Many noble Lords have had the opportunity of opening a new school. It is a great privilege to do so. What usually happens is that the headmaster says: "you must come and see our new domestic science unit". He takes one up to the kind of kitchen which none of us could afford in our own homes. He says that three girls spend a week in the kitchen and have to do the housekeeping for a family for the whole week. I suspect that too much of such courses is oriented towards budgeting and not enough towards reading labels and understanding what to buy. Thanks to the efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, today every label gives a description of the food that one buys. It describes the ingredients; it tells one how long it will keep and it has information on batches so that defective food can be traced.

There is also the special problem of additives in imported foods. In Great Britain the Ministry of Agriculture approves only those additives in imported foods which are necessary and safe. I believe that we should give individuals complete freedom of choice in what they buy, but that should be an informed choice with people having the ability to make up their own minds.

We are now into the third month of 1989. which, as I have said, is the year of food and farming. Of course there are doubts and problems affecting the agriculture industry. Agri-business will survive: the milk producers are tucked under a continental quilt of quotas and live in a nice little world of their own. Many small and medium sized farms are worried about their future. One thing that can be said about food and farming in 1989 is that we can celebrate the fact that here in England we have the best and most wholesome food in the world.

3.36 p.m.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, at the outset I should like to underline and endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, about our present dependence on the veterinary profession, the very real anxieties about recruitment to that profession and the position of the veterinary schools. I too hope that the noble Lord will receive sympathetic and reassuring responses to those points from the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate.

We are debating an immensely important subject. We are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for giving us this opportunity to debate it. However, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if, as a doctor, I say that in present circumstances—and we all know what those circumstances are and hear enough about them at the moment—a coherent policy of food preparation and consumption is every bit as important as a coherent policy for food production.

If noble Lords heeded all the advice that they had received over the years from doctors on what not to eat one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the only way to stay absolutely healthy would be to starve to death. I am sure that noble Lords will remember the advice that carbohydrates make you fat, fats give you coronary thrombosis, and so on, and so on. However, the position has changed very greatly in recent years. They have certainly changed since I first became a doctor. In those days, in giving advice about food to patients we used to talk glibly about plenty of dairy products. Nowadays in medical terms that would be heresy. I have medical colleagues in your Lordships' House who genuinely believe that every bottle of milk should carry a government health warning.

I do not entirely share those views about milk. I believe that milk is a valuable source of nutrition. I would go further: I favour the restoration of free school milk to children attending primary school in this country. I believe that milk is a valuable source of nutrition for many children who in some parts of the country, and in urban areas in particular, are dangerously malnourished. I think that we could do so, bearing in mind the EC subsidy, at very little cost. I shall leave the subject of milk for the moment, but later I shall return to the narrower subject of the pasteurisation of milk.

It is very many years since Lewis Carroll put the words: I see what I eat", into the mouth of the Mad Hatter, but nowadays most of us can see what we eat, although few, if any, of us know what we eat. Food additives of one kind or another are here to stay, whatever the green brigade may happen to say. With an ever-growing world population, some additives are essential to prolong the storage life of food. Without them, millions of people would be condemned to starvation. Other additives are essential in order to restore nutrients when they have been removed or destroyed by modern food manufacturing processes.

However, the situation regarding accidental additives—those that I was talking about before I referred to deliberate additives and which include hormones, antibiotics, viruses and bacteria that sometimes find their way into our food—is very different. As the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said, we are deeply dependent in this matter on the veterinary profession. I too am rather alarmed by what I am told by the British Veterinary Association and others about the threatened closure of certain veterinary schools and the possibility of inadequate recruitment to a profession which, frankly, becomes more and more important to our nation every day.

The pace of modern life has changed greatly. Eating habits have changed so totally that the old homely advice that we used to give as doctors—we recommended a good mixed diet with plenty of fresh food, including vegetables and dairy products and, provided that there was a wide enough variety of food, plenty of uncooked and raw food—no longer has any meaning. In urban areas, there are literally millions of homes in which no real cooking takes place at all and families appear to subsist exclusively on bought-in, pre-cooked foods; therein lie some of the dangers.

As we all know, viruses and bacteria enter food at various critical temperatures and they do so both as the temperature rises and as it falls again. We also know that reheating pre-cooked food destroys pathogens only if the reheating process is carried up to temperatures which amount virtually to recooking. I have no doubt that microwave cookers are a great convenience to busy housewives, but I suspect that they may also be a boon to certain organisms which, as a result, escape the temperatures that would lead to their destruction. I am suspicious of microwaves because I do not fully understand them. I am always suspicious of things that I do not fully understand. I am suspicious of Dr. Owen, for example—but that is a different subject.

I believe that the time has come for clear advice to be given to housewives and the public as a whole. We know, and the noble Baroness knows, that there is advice on every packet of cigarettes—advice that is heeded by everyone who has given up smoking and is largely ignored by those who have not. But we also know that we have now reached a state of public opinion in which the public would be genuinely receptive to sensible advice. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, suggested that that advice should be given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not mind which government department gives it, provided that it is given with one voice and that all the Ministers say the same thing. That has not always happened recently. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, has not always been absolutely unambiguous in his recent pronouncements about salmonella, listeria and other such matters.

I believe that the advice given to housewives when they shop is not now sufficient. A friend of mine, who recently bought some chilled food in a reputable store which provides most excellent food, asked, "How soon should I eat it?" and was told to eat it by the sell-by date. The sell-by date has nothing to do with the matter. We need an eat-by date so that we know how long we can store that food in our refrigerators and deep freezers. That advice is not given clearly and unequivocally to shoppers, and it should be if we are to avoid a repetition of the epidemics and infections that we have had in the past.

In that connection, perhaps I may say that it is time we dropped the term "food poisoning" as we are not talking about poisoning at all; we are talking about the consequences of eating infected food. In the old days, we thought that every case of sickness and diarrhoea was caused by food poisoning. We used to talk about ptomaine poisoning and things of that kind. We now recognise that almost all those cases were not poisoning in the true sense of the word; they were in fact caused by infected food.

It is the business of farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and various other people to make sure that infections of one kind or another which later come into our food do not enter animals at various stages in their growth, development and feeding. That is one side of the matter, but it is inevitable that certain pathogens will find their way into food. It is essential in the modern situation that clear, coherent and unequivocal advice is given to people when they buy food about how they should eat and keep it and in what way they should use their various pieces of equipment.

There is plenty of advice to be found. The Institute of Food Science and Technology produced a most excellent publication. I am absolutely certain that shoppers up and down the country will not read it all. If they did, it would be valuable to them, as would some of the advice given by the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council. We need a new look at the kind of labelling that is put on those foods that have now become almost the main source of nutrition for the average person in our society. I shall not argue about which government department should do that. I simply say that it should be done. If it is not done, we shall continue to have repetitions of recent events which have destroyed confidence in all sorts of foodstuffs.

I regard eggs as a highly valuable source of nutrition, quite apart from the fact that I like them, and I should like people to be able to continue to eat such things. They can do so with safety, provided that the correct advice is given to the shopper—not misleading and contradictory advice or advice that results in panic and people shunning food that is quite valuable to them.

I have spoken largely as a doctor. I must now return briefly to the other subject that I said I would mention; that is the question of the pasteurisation of milk. I am old enough to remember the days when members of my profession resisted the pasteurisation of milk and talked about the importance of preserving raw milk and its nutritional qualities; but times have changed. I am also old enough to remember the days during the war when American servicemen in Britain went down like ninepins with bovine tuberculosis which they contracted from drinking raw milk in Britain. They had no inbuilt immunity to that particular bacillus and, as I said, they went down like ninepins. At one stage during the war, it became a military offence for American servicemen in Britain to drink raw, untreated milk.

It is my recollection—I believe that I am right—that it is now more than three years since the use of non-pasteurised milk was banned in Scotland. I know that the argument against banning non-pasteurised milk is usually that we must think about the dairy farmers and their livelihood. When I look at Scottish farmers—and one in particular who I believe will speak later in this debate—it seems to me that Scottish farmers starve every bit as comfortably as their English counterparts. It is therefore perhaps time that we followed the example that has been set with regard to Scotland.

If we do that, I am quite sure that there are other things that we shall have to do too. The EC will have to put its various houses in order because, clearly, there are dangers in the importation of foods that have been made with raw, unpasteurised milk. That matter needs to be considered now and I should like to hear whether the Government propose to take any particular action on that front. I await with great interest the answers to be given by the noble Baroness when she replies and I am quite sure that they will be as clear and unambiguous on this occasion as they always have been when she has answered for other departments.

3.50 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, as a cordon bleu cook who still does quite a lot of cooking at home, although I am not above using convenience foods when I consider it necessary, I found the advice on cooking eggs doled out by Sir Donald Acheson last December pretty grim reading. From some of the conflicting and astonishing advice floating about at that time and since on how to cook various dishes, it was quite clear that the givers of that advice could not even boil an egg.

Necessary as it may have been, the advice which was so blandly given to vulnerable people such as the elderly, the sick, babies, toddlers and pregnant women that they should eat only eggs cooked until the yolk and the white were solid was particularly unwelcome. I should have expected the Ministry of Health at least to know that hard boiled eggs are extremely indigestible and especially so for those categories of consumers. Moreover, for many frail, elderly people and invalids with delicate digestions, lightly cooked eggs are the only protein that they are able to digest, as are a wide variety of dishes which can only be made with raw or partly cooked eggs; namely, custards, mousses, souffles and omelettes.

From what I think was the draft report of the joint MAFF-DOH and BEIC working group—the one placed in the Library last week—I was very glad to read on the last page before the appendices under the heading "Salmonella in Eggs" that: It is unrealistic to expect the public at large to (a) stop consuming raw eggs, (b) desist from consuming the large range of dishes containing eggs which receive little or no heat treatment, (c) always follow the stringent cooking procedures recommended to destroy salmonellae in eggs. Neither is it in the long-term best interests of the industry to pursue these routes. It is therefore essential that a long-term solution to the problem is sought and implemented". I think that it might also be in the long-term interests of the Government, since the public in general have a habit of blaming the government of the day for every misfortune which befalls, including flood, drought and tempest.

I wonder whether in her winding-up speech the Minister would care to comment on three or four points that I should like to make. I understand from the first report of the Agricultural Committee which has been published today that the Government are planning an education campaign on hygiene in the home with specific advice about cooking eggs. Will they take advice on this matter from properly trained cooks? If people are told that they should make mayonnaise sauce with hard boiled egg yolks, as I have heard suggested, such advice will be scorned by any cook worthy of the name. It is perfectly possible to make an edible sauce with hard-boiled egg yolks but it would not be mayonnaise, and that should be made clear.

We are told that pasteurised egg yolk and egg white will shortly be available to the general public in the shops, as it is already available to the catering industry. Perhaps I may just pause for a moment to say that I know that the Refreshment Department in this House use pasteurised egg in cooking and has done so for some time. I for one have complete confidence in the safety of what I eat here. Can the Minister give any indication of how soon pasteurised egg will be available to the general public?

Will it be possible for her ministry to put pressure on the manufacturers to package that product in multiples of two? One alone might be ideal but I understand that that would be totally impracticable. However, couples and single people often require only one or two egg yolks or whites at a time and will not be able to afford to purchase larger quantities and throw away what they do not require—and presumably this egg will be more expensive than shell eggs.

Can the Minister also comment on the possible use of the technique called "competitive exclusion", whereby chicks are dosed with a compound of natural bacteria cultured from organisms which protects them from salmonella infection, provided that it is administered on a continuous basis throughout their lives? I understand that scientists at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol tested this procedure successfully on 250,000 birds in breeding flocks but that government funding stopped before it had been tested on laying flocks. Will the Government make available the necessary funding to enable this method to be tested as soon as possible on laying flocks and, if it is successful, will they make available such financial support as may be necessary to enable the manufacturers of this cocktail of benevolent bacteria to expand production quickly so that all laying flocks in this country can be treated?

Finally, I should like to pick up a point made by both the noble Lords, Lord Kimball and Lord Winstanley. I add my voice to theirs in a plea to the Government not to close the Glasgow Veterinary School. Apart from anything else it would be a very unpopular move in Scotland. I plead with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who I see is in his place, to do his best to persuade his colleagues not to take that action.

3.56 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gallacher on moving this Motion and in particular on the way in which he put the Government on the spot. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to satisfy his arguments when the time comes. I should also like to apologise to noble Lords and to the Minister who will reply to the Motion. I have a long-standing engagement tonight which I cannot break and this means that I shall not be able to hear the end of the debate. I shall not be attending a dinner or anything of that kind. I have an important engagement with an official of the Rural Development Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on the problems of semi-urban villages. I am sorry that I shall not be able to stay for the end of the debate.

This is a necessary debate. One has hardly been able to open a paper in the past few months without reading of some scare. The media are to be deprecated for the way in which they have treated this situation. I was very surprised when only last week the Guardian published an article on aflatoxin in maize and linked it to the fact that consuming a lot of cornflakes may lead to cancer. I think that that went beyond the fair reporting of any situation.

I cannot match the culinary lecture of my noble friend Lady Saltoun although I can produce a fairly good meal if pushed. However, I should like to deal with the problem from the point of view of a producer who started production just over 62 years ago. In the summer of 1927 we started a poultry unit. I have chosen poultry with which to open my remarks because of the furore over eggs and chickens. Our unit consisted of four large colony houses placed in the middle of pen and pasture fields. Each of them held about 250 to 300 laying hens which had free access to the pasture. We did not have to shut them in at night—there are no foxes in the middle of Aberdeenshire, which is a good thing.

We bought and reared day-old chicks to begin with; later we incubated our own. This work employed a man full time with part-time help from his wife, so there was high labour content in handling hens in that way. Their main diet—not the diet of the man and his wife but that of the chickens—consisted of oats grown on the farm and purchased laying meals. We were quite happy if we obtained in the region of 200 eggs per bird. In fact we seldom reached that target. Twenty years later, just after the war, I put in a battery laying unit of about 4,000 birds. I am using "I" instead of "we" at this point because I started farming with my father for three years—that is the "we"—but I was on my own when I began this project. We bought the birds at point of lay and they were fed a very intensive laying meal only. It was part-time work for someone. We were not very happy unless we were getting nearly 300 eggs per bird.

A few years later I tried feeding cockerels up to capon weight.Then I met the late Sir Geoffrey Sykes. He said, "Good gracious! What a waste of food! Put in a broiler unit", so I did. Five thousand birds were crowded together and fed a very intensive and highly medicated food. The turnover was very quick and profits of up to one shilling per bird could be made.

Then came the famous broiler boom. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, knows about it, living as she has in the area of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire where a number of broiler houses grew up very quickly at that time. This created a decrease in the profits. It came down to a few pence per bird. One needed about 50,000 birds to have anything like a viable unit. I therefore did not wish to cover the farm with asbestos-roofed buildings and I gave up broiler keeping at that time.

However, I must mention the development that there has been in broiler keeping and in the battery keeping of hens for laying. It has now become mechanised to a degree that would have been unbelievable 20 years ago when I first put in a battery. The feeding, collecting of eggs and cleaning is automatic; and the labour factor is very low indeed.

I have painted this picture of the egg situation but it produced very cheap eggs and chickens. At one time a chicken was a luxury to a working man in this country. Now it is available to everyone.

I could paint this same picture of feeding cattle, milk cows, sheep and pigs. When one looks at the fat cattle situation. Dr. Preston of the Rowett Institute produced a feed to intensify feeding of store cattle and calves up to a weight of 7.5 to 8 cwt. inside a year. Who in Scotland would ever envisage the number of inside sheds that there are for lambing sheep? That is a tremendous development. Many people are now feeding lambs inside.

When I started dairying at the beginning of the war I asked the local sanitary inspector whether I could put in cow yards and not tie them up by the neck. He flatly refused and insisted that the cows were tied by the neck in old-fashioned byres. One hardly sees a cow shed anywhere. All the cows are loose and of course the production of milk is very high from them.

The same applies to pigs. When I consider my original pig unit in Scotland, I compare what my son has done with sows in stalls, with the development of taking pigs away at less than three weeks, and getting the sow to give two and a half litters a year instead of one.

The situation is the same with regard to crops. I remember when we thought that we were doing tremendously well in Aberdeenshire if we could grow 30 cwt. of oats to the acre. Now we are not content unless we get three tonnes. On barley it is the same. With wheat, farmers are struggling to achieve over four and up to five tonnes. The same position applies to potatoes. Ten tonnes was a reasonable crop at one time. Now they are looking for 20 tonnes and in some cases achieving it. That story applies to other root crops also.

That is the picture that I am trying to paint of what has happened in the last 50-odd years. All this has happened because farmers have been so well served by research and development bodies. I think of Rothamsted which dealt with crops and soils and the Macaulay institute in Aberdeen, on soil research, the Rowett institute for animal nutrition, and the Plant Breeding Institute in Cambridge, the NIAE for mechanisation at Silsoe, and many more. Our colleges and advisory services are helping us to use this knowledge to increase production. We have also been helped by many commercial firms which have research bodies of their own, and have the results of that research.

The result has been that we are today producing 100 per cent. plus of our temperate foods—the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, mentioned this—instead of about 33 per cent. which we were producing in the 1930s. The food is cheaper, although I am not sure that the word "cheaper" is correct. However, let me give you some examples that I have worked out myself. In the late 1920s and early 1930s a working man earning about £2.10s. a week for a 50-hour week had to work 15 minutes to buy a pint of milk. Today a working man earning £160 to £170 a week has to work only four minutes to buy a pint of milk. The same applies to a loaf of bread. In the 1930s he had to work 30 minutes to buy a loaf of bread; today he has to work eight and a half minutes. He had to work an hour in the 1930s to buy eggs at a shilling a dozen. Today 15 minutes' work buys a dozen eggs. The only beef that a working man bought in my part of the country in Aberdeenshire was a brisket of boiling beef. He had to work an hour and a half to buy a pound of that, whereas today 25 minutes' work will buy that beef.

These are figures that should be noted because there is so much talk about dear food, and that if we could only stop subsidising farmers, get out of the CAP, and goodness knows what, food would then be cheaper. I doubt that very much indeed because I have spoken of the situation in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Any amount of so-called "cheap" food was coming into the country, and it belies the fact that food is cheap today when considering how long a man has to work to buy it. I feel that I should emphasise that as much as I can.

There is now the question of whether this food is as good as it used to be. I do not know what my noble kinsman will say today but I think that he may try to persuade us that it is not so good and that organic food is what we should be aiming for. All I can say is this: I do not know whether we would notice the difference, but we would be very short of food if we went back to the system that produced organic food in the 1930s.

To achieve this massive increase the inputs are also massive. What we do is very much open to criticism. We pour on fertilisers, in particular nitrogen, to the detriment of our water supplies. One needs to balance the cost of purifying our water supplies against the loss that there would be in food production by reducing nitrogen to the extent needed. It is a fine point but it needs to be considered.

We spray on all kinds of pesticides. Are the residues dangerous to health? I do not know. We inject our cattle with growth promoting hormones and our cows with synthetic proteins which can increase milk yields by up to 30 per cent. Are there residues from these? Again, I do not know.

I want to make this point clear. There are roughly 240,000 individual farmers in our country today. We must be guided. We cannot understand. We can only be guided by the research people and advisers, by the scientists, the medical research people, the vets and so on. It is a government duty to see that all this is provided. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Kimball, and the noble Lady about the veterinary profession and the closing down of veterinary schools in Glasgow and Cambridge. This help must be provided by the Government, not only to protect the consumer but to protect the producer as well and, if necessary, they must legislate.

I do not propose to go into the cuts and closures in research that the Government are carrying out. I believe that my noble friend Lord Carter will deal with that point. But the projected closure of the Bristol meat research laboratory and any cutting down of Rothamsted's funds—where there is so much research being done into nitrogen and water problems—would show a lack of responsibility in the matter.

I do not believe that outbreaks of salmonella and so on have anything to do with intensive production. That has been proved. It has to do with hygiene and it is the job of health inspectors to see that hygiene is high on farms, particularly where products such eggs and milk go more or less directly to the consumer; otherwise it is the job of packaging and handling concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned. I hope that the Government appreciate the whole problem of food and take appropriate action.

4.12 p.m.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I wish to look at a different aspect of quality and safety in food production from that which is in the spotlight, not because I am unconcerned about the incidence of food poisoning, if that is the right term; far from it. The last time I suffered from it was an occasion I shall not forget and I profoundly hope it will never happen again. The effects are horrible but in the vast majority of cases they are short term. You know you have been hit. There is a violent reaction and the human body has its mechanisms for getting rid of the problem.

By contrast there are many elements in our modern diet which pose a long-term threat to health and whose effects are insidious. Most of us are aware of the issues of fat, sugar, salt and fibre, even if the lack of clarity in official advice makes them harder to discern than perhaps need be the case. But what of the whole business of the intensive processing of food, with thousands of man-made chemicals, which would make our late 20th century diet quite unrecognisable to all our predecessors on this planet? A document from the Institute of Food Science and Technology which I received through the post yesterday speaks carefully of "substances intentionally incorporated in foods". I shall call them "additives" for short.

primarily for the benefit of the consumer? Are they rigorously controlled and legislated for and therefore safe? These are the arguments from the side of the food manufacturers, supported by government. I believe that a number of points need to be made.

First, the rigorous testing is something of an illusion. Only a proportion of the huge numbers of chemicals can possibly be evaluated properly. Cost, time and manpower see to that. They are tested singly in isolation, which is not how we consume them. The vast cocktail of interactions in real life can never be replicated in the laboratory. Most of the testing is on relatively small numbers of animals, and healthy animals at that. Scientists of all shades of opinion agree that extrapolation to humans is a doubtful business, especially as, in the words of one toxicologist: We have to consider a population of millions, including the old, young, sick and those on the threshold of adaptation, for whom a normally negligible stimulus might lead to breakdown of some physiological system". Sometimes the "rigorous testing" is no more than a rigorous search of the literature involving reliance on old studies conducted by methods which are out of date or even, in one case of far-reaching importance, fraudulent.

The dangers from additives, like the dangers from environmental pollutants, are mostly long term and this is where medical science is at its weakest in establishing cause and effect, with so many variables over a 20 or 30-year time-scale. The fault is not so much in the work our scientists do in the highly uncertain world of toxicology; it is in the optimistic pronouncements they make about safety which cannot be substantiated by the techniques they have at their disposal and which look foolish each time a permitted additive is withdrawn when its dangers have become apparent.

The fault also lies in a certain insularity. Britain allows more additives and has a weaker control than almost any other country in the developed world. Colourings, for example, that are banned elsewhere on safety grounds are still permitted in this country. Why should our standards be so much more lax than those of our neighbours?

Is there any evidence that people actually become ill through eating highly processed food? There is. Acute reactions are relatively easy to pinpoint, and there is now little doubt from medical trials of the effects of tartrazine and similar agents in provoking migraine, hyperactivity and other disorders. There is some very interesting and persuasive research linking a refined diet with deviant behaviour and lowered intelligence. Practitioners in allergy and environmental medicine are finding that their patients improve significantly when introduced to whole-food, additive-free diets.

Over the longer term, as I have said, the argument must be more speculative. Those who have studied the health of so-called primitive peoples, alongside the rise in diseases common to western civilisation, make quite a strong case for the link between these diseases and the unnatural diet to which most of us are now accustomed. If statistically we live longer than we did, that is only because of the decline in infant deaths. The quality of our lives is another matter. A chief determinant of this, strangely overlooked by modern high-technology medicine, is the quality of nutrition.

It is argued that if we do not want to eat additives we can avoid them; labelling regulations provide for that. This is a partial truth. Flavourings, by far the largest group of additives by number, do not have to be identified on labels. Alcohol is exempt from labelling; so are medicines, often highly coloured; so are take-aways; and so are unwrapped foods.

Is this the way that consumers want it? There is no reliable way of knowing since they are not adequately represented on the bodies that matter. But the recent signs are that they are voting with their feet in the supermarkets against the chemicalisation of the food supply.

Is this the way the law means it to be? Section 4(2) of the Food Act 1984 provides that: Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods". Well over 90 per cent. of all additives are of purely cosmetic value. What has gone wrong?

I should regard a policy which took a less permissive line on additives as contributing substantially towards quality and safety, as well as assurance to customers. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would probably disagree but, as he said, in the past doctors have changed their minds about diet and they will probably do so again. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, could not be present this afternoon because I believe that he would have supported that view.

Vitamins and minerals may lack glamour but increasingly their importance is being recognised—except, that is, by those who frame the RDAs (recommended daily amounts). Once again, Britain is way out of step as comparative tables show.

Nutrition is a poor relation in medical education. Our thinking is still largely geared to the prevention of a few major deficiency diseases such as scurvy or rickets. We still have no RDAs for vitamin E, zinc, sodium, potassium and several others. Could it be that, in the light of recent findings about deficiencies in young people's diets, the updating of standards may prove embarrassing for government and the food manufacturers?

That question needs to be asked because it leads into one of the most worrying areas in the realm of safety and quality of food production. I refer to government committees, such as the Committee on Toxicity and the Food Advisory Committee, and to their extraordinarily close links with the food industry. There are parallels with the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the pharmaceutical industry. In some cases those connected with the food companies are the largest single grouping. A food scientist can often wear the hat of a company chairman or consultant, an academic or a government adviser. He can perform interchangeably the role of industrialist, expert or policy-maker, and that of judge as to what goes into our food supply.

The circle is fairly close-knit and the participants obviously believe that they can act with true independence. One participant commented, "I asked the chairman whether he wanted me to leave the room or not, but the fact is that on many occasions with the COT I would have to declare an interest on every item on the agenda".

Does that prove that there is safety in numbers? Am I unusual in finding that a less than acceptable way of doing business? Even the Government's chief scientist and chief medical officer have been involved. It is not that one doubts the integrity of those committee men and women but rather that they should never be put in such a false position. We would not do such a thing with our judges. As has been said, it may be correct that if you want to find out what is wrong with the British food supply you must find out what is wrong with the structure of the British Government official advisory committees.

All that would be more tolerable if one had access to the decisions, the arguments and the sources of information. But that is official secrets territory, which adds insult to injury in a democracy. All the work of the food and health committees is governed by the Official Secrets Act. Within a flawed system there is no way in which a citizen can check on what is being decided for him in an area of literally vital concern.

If we are looking for safety and quality in the matters about which I have spoken, I believe that we need at least four things. We need more than token consumer representation on the committees that matter. With that should go a lifting of secrecy: the Official Secrets Act has no place in our breakfasts and dinners. We need an official committee system that is truly independent of commercial interests, and that is perfectly possible. We need a much more precautionary stance over safety in artificial additives to food and drink. I believe that that is largely an attitude of mind which finds its parallel in care for the environment in general. Ideally, we in this country need a firm policy on food that recognises the fact that, since the war, the agenda has been set not by good medical advice but by chance and commercial interests which, however benevolently inclined, are not in it for their health or for ours.

4.25 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, I do not intend to make a speech but to ask the Minister a series of questions which fall under two headings. The first concerns chickenfeed; the second concerns food labelling.

The Agriculture Committee of another place, which produced its report at midday today, investigated the question of salmonella in eggs. Mr. Bob Tanner, the chief executive of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, gave evidence to the committee. Although I have not had the time to read up to question No. 297, I was told that in evidence he said: You do not alter the plumbing downstream if your reservoir is infected". Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to ask how chickens become infected. Salmonella is the organism which is most in the news and is the subject of the report. However, other organisms are at present in the public eye. We hear of "listeria hysteria"; and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. That is a rather nice mouthful, except when you eat it. There are also organisms such as campylo bacteria which, as a doctor, I find is as often a cause of diarrhoea as any other organism.

Infection can occur from three main sources: the feed, the environment and the other animals in the breeding stock. Salmonella enteriditis, which is found mainly in eggs, does not so obviously occur from the feed but is more often passed from one animal to another. I understand that much more research is required to discover how the organism has entered laying flocks.

Many other strains of salmonella and organisms originate in the feed. I should like to investigate two or three aspects of poultry feedstuff. Since the "salmonella in eggs" episode and the remarks made by Mrs. Currie, there has been a great deal of interest in the press in recycled chicken offal. It is refed to chickens after processing. The idea is repugnant but as the material is heat-treated it could be and probably is quite safe if it is not contaminated after manufacture. I should like to know whether that occurs (and I believe that it does); how; in what way; and whether it is possible for measures to be introduced in order to control it.

Most of the remaining animal protein for poultry is fishmeal imported from countries as far away as South America, particularly Chile and Peru. It is also imported from Scandinavia, for example. However, the fishmeal from South America is more likely to be contaminated and falls into the "black" category, but I understand that fishmeal from "clean" countries such as Denmark is often infected. It has been said that some Scandinavian countries selectively export their contaminated fishmeal so that their own poultry are not infected.

I should like to know how effective the Minister considers to be the Imported Animal Protein Order, 1987, in curbing the problem. How many batches or cargoes of imported animal protein have been refused import licences over the past few years? Do we know what proportion contained potentially pathogenic organisms? Do we have enough fully qualified staff to step up the monitoring of imported feedstuffs? If a contaminated batch is accepted, what mechanism is there to ensure that it is adequately heat treated or processed in some way to eliminate the bacteria and subsequently—and this may be quite important—to prevent recontamination?

Some infection occurs through cereal feedstuffs; it is not only animal protein. I am told that cereals are not exempt and that mostly home-grown wheat and some other grains can and often do become contaminated by rats, mice and birds getting into the silos or storage containers. Is there any way in which that can be dealt with? If batches become contaminated, should they not be sterilised by heat treatment or other methods? I hesitate to suggest irradiation, but that would be one method. Would it be very costly? I gather that most feedstuffs for egg laying are not heat treated, whether imported or home supplied, other than the recycled offal. Should that not become a much greater part of the normal processing system?

My second question is rather peripheral to the topic of food hygiene which has been addressed by most speakers other than the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who dealt with additives. However, the Motion also mentions quality and the need for consumers to be allowed more say in food policy. Therefore, I feel that it is entirely in order to look at nutritional labelling as well as hygiene. The Agriculture Committee mentions that by applying an arbitrary multiplier of 100 to the reported cases of food poisoning, which is possibly justifiable in view of the gross under-reporting, there would be an estimated 2 million cases of food poisoning per annum. Those are usually so mild that doctors are not told of them. If they are reported to doctors, an analysis or a culture of the stool is not made because the infection usually disappears very quickly.

In contrast to the possible 2 million cases of food poisoning which result in very few deaths, except when people are vulnerable and immunologically compromised in some way, there are 2 million people in the country who are chronic sufferers from the effects of coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis through angina, heart failure, atherosclerosis of the legs or sometimes a stroke. This is a crippling disease. There are 135,000 or more deaths a year from coronary heart disease.

Nearly five years ago, in May 1984, the COMA (the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy) report on diet and cardiovascular disease recognised, on the strength of overwhelming scientific evidence, that our national diet was a basic cause of the problem. It made a number of recommendations. One was that all processed food should be labelled so that consumers could choose a diet which conformed to COMA recommendations. The committee emphasised that the fat content of the food and the proportion of that fat composed of saturated fatty acids should be made very clear on the label. Since then, consumer groups, including the National Consumer Council and the Coronary Prevention Group, have suggested that the information should be indicated in a graphic or symbolic form so that it can easily be understood by lay people. There have been a number of delays in introducing nutritional labelling into this country because of the need to harmonise with the EC. Now the EC is putting forward its own recommendations. Can the noble Baroness say how those negotiations are progressing, particularly as regards the suggestion of COMA that fats and saturated fat content should be clearly labelled?

This country has the worst coronary heart disease record in Europe. So there is a strong argument, on public health grounds alone, that this part of the labelling requirement should be insisted upon. I believe that there are provisions in EC legislation to allow us to do that. I feel that the labelling should be made mandatory if possible.

There is increasing scientific evidence that the type, rather than the amount, of fat in the diet is critical. For example, the diet of Eskimos has an enormously high fat content. Yet almost no coronary heart disease exists among them. Similarly, Greek people consume a tremendous amount of olive oil but have a very low rate of coronary heart disease.

Finally, I should like to echo the call made by my noble friend Lord Gallacher for a consumer food committee within MAFF. Indeed, I go further and call for a separate Ministry of Food. When there was one during the war, our national nutritional status improved enormously despite the difficulty of our overall food situation.

4.36 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It is one thing to label food properly—I am all for that—but it is quite another to persuade people to eat what they should. Much effort has gone into trying to prevent us smoking. On the whole, that has been very successful. The more people read on the matter, the less they smoke. Maybe that will happen with food, but I do not think it will happen quickly.

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his typically moderate introduction. I thought that he was perhaps going to attack the Government in a heavy way; I am delighted that he did not. Perhaps with his closing speech will come the vigour. I do not believe that it will necessarily be more successful. However, notwithstanding the introduction, I am most puzzled at the terms of the Motion.

I have been concerned with the affairs of the food processing industry for 14 years, if that does not disturb the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, too much. I have to declare an interest in that I am still parliamentary adviser to the biscuit, cake, chocolate and confectionery alliance. I was also a member of sub-committee D in this House for about 10 of those 14 years, several of them under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. With that experience I say emphatically that although the implementation of the common agricultural policy has left much to be desired in most years, it has certainly been coherent as a policy for food production. Furthermore, where the implementation has been faulty, it has normally been due to lack of resolution by the farm Ministers of other member states rather than any lack of consistency of approach by United Kingdom agriculture Ministers and the Ministry. Sometimes one could call into question the particular policies of individual British Ministers, Labour as well as Conservative. But that is very different from accusing them of lacking a coherent policy.

Perhaps I may turn to assurances about quality and safety. It has been my experience during past 14 years that MAFF and indeed the European Commission have continuously sought food and drink standards that ensure both safety and the highest quality. That is also true of all the food and drink processors and, in my more limited experience, of the farmers too. The biscuit, cake and confectionery industry, for example, maintains an active working party on microbiology to monitor events and issue guidance to the members of its alliance. As another example, all eggs used in the industry are pasteurised. I should add that the only way to guarantee microbiological (including additives) safety is to monitor and control the processes by which food is produced. Short cuts such as the sampling and testing of individual items are not a valid means of control and are not to be recommended for anybody, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The industries with which I am associated are perhaps fortunate in that their products in the main have to be cooked. The word "biscuit" comes from the French and means that which is twice cooked. However, I am aware that all food and drink processing members of the Food and Drink Federation are equally careful to ensure that their products are of high quality and safety. Perhaps in mentioning that federation it is relevant to say that I went to one of its dinners this last Monday, and though the principal speaker was a Ministry of Agriculture Minister, there was a Department of Health Minister present. That shows that they are working together.

Apart from having no wish to poison the community, the reputation of their business (which is usually worldwide) for all food and drink processors depends on quality and safety. It just is not worth while to produce inadequate manufactured food; and I find it hard to understand—I perhaps would hope to speak to him outside the Chamber—why the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, seems to be so definitely clear and sure that you cannot trust the manufacturers in general or their food scientists in particular. I feel that that opinion is a very biased one. I would hope perhaps to discuss it with him so that I could explain that the situation is not like that, as he would realise if he had had the privilege, as I have, of dealing with these people.

The argument about the need not to poison the public, the importance of one's reputation if one is to last in business and thus the need for a high regard for quality and safety, applies equally to farmers. Indeed, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and his emphasis on the need for hygiene on farms are a very good pointer to that.

Government action is consistent with this. Various food Acts require that food is safe and that consumers are not misled. The labelling directive and the consequent UK labelling regulations are designed to ensure that the consumer understands fully what he or she is buying. Recent tough pesticide regulations are an example of added care for the safety of food at the farm gate. Regulations and a directive to ensure that the consumer knows all about the nutritional value of food and that the food is good for the consumer have been under discussion for the past few years and will shortly be brought into effect. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was referring to when he mentioned the COMA Report and its outcome. I hope that perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give us some idea about timing.

However, it takes time to produce new regulations of this sort. It is important that the results are accurate and that the consumer is left with as much choice as possible consistent with quality and safety. If there is too much restriction on how people can develop the foods which they process and sell to the public, choice decreases, and that surely is not in the consumers' best interest—at least the consumers do not seem to think so, because they are permanently seeking new types of food and new methods of preparation. One can only imagine they do that because they want to, and provided the food is of high quality and safe to eat, I feel that is the right approach.

To sum up on this point, throughout the past 14 years that I have been associated with the food industry I have seen the never-ending efforts of MAFF, working as necessary in conjunction with the Department of Health, to ensure the quality and safety of food on offer to the public. It is a memory of a constant stream of regulations under discussion, sometimes, but not always, backed by directives, and certainly not waiting for directives.

That, I think, deals with the Motion, which I do not think is worded correctly because it is not necessary as it stands. However, perhaps I should touch on the real reason for the debate: the great salmonella and listeria scare of the winter of 1988–89.

There is no doubt that agriculture Ministers reacted much too slowly to an unfortunate and casual exaggeration by a health Minister and that the subsequent reactions by poultry keepers were so strong that suspicions were created that the Department of Health might have been right after all. Those were mistakes, and it is a pity. The timing of Christmas did not help very much either; but the matter might have been brought into perspective sooner had Ministers appreciated that the media and the Opposition would make a real meal of the whole affair. They have done that, and of course Oppositions are in business to do that. I regret that the Opposition has been efficient on this occasion and I hope that it will not happen again! However, I do not think there is more to it than just an efficient bit of opposition and I think we can rest fairly happily on these Benches because on the whole the right things have been done in the end. Nevertheless, it really is necessary for all Ministers and their departments—not just the two which are the subject of this debate—to improve their ability to react to impending troubles and to co-ordinate their comments more effectively.

It disappoints me, speaking as a loyal Back-Bencher, that so many blunders are made in this area. Apart from the Opposition, who are doing their job properly—and in a sense I would say, "More power to their elbow", because that is what they are there for—I think the media overdo these things. One cannot stop them, but it means that it is much more important for the facilities available to the Government to be deployed as effectively as possible and for them to be of the necessary calibre to take on misuse of the media's great freedom,

Two things come to me as essential lessons to be learnt from this event, neither of which your Lordships may perhaps think were of the first importance as the event unrolled although I am sure that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would agree with one of them. The first is the need for proper care and hygiene in the kitchen. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health are doing their best to produce the right regulations.

For the reasons I gave, the farmers and the food processors are doing their best to make sure that their food is healthy and of high quality. But when food gets into the kitchen and into the hands of the housewife, or her husband, which is even worse, the way in which it is handled is important; namely, whether it is put into the fridge properly; whether the fridge is at the right temperature; whether they know how to use the micro-oven or whatever it is called; and whether they leave the food lying about; how many cockroaches there are and whether they kill them—all these matters are out of the control of the people who are the subject of the debate. I believe that is a very important lesson to be learnt.

The second lesson is one that relates to other matters, but this event has given added reason for it. I believe that during the past five years or so the morale of farmers has been unfairly and seriously hurt by the kind of events that have just been happening. They are accused—and found guilty without any proof in many cases—of not looking after their affairs properly so that they do not produce decent food. There is also the bad impression that has been created by the common agricultural policy, for which they are blamed although it is not the farmers' fault.

Of course farmers want to have the backing of something of that kind or even that which the deficiency payments will give. I will not deny them that. They are not to blame for the actual application of the common agricultural policy because in the last resort that is the responsibility of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The other point is that they have come under fire from environmentalists for not properly looking after the countryside. In my experience the farmers in my part of the world look after the countryside very well indeed. I am sure that that is the situation throughout the country. There are exceptions; there is a farm near me which is not tended as well as it should be, but it is not bad and it is not disastrous.

A further lesson is the need to reassure British farmers that they are still vital to the survival of the people within the community. My noble friend Lord Kimball made the point that for the first time since World War II we might run out of food. We shall need our farmers. It is also important that they should be reassured that they are still respected for their care of the environment.

4.53 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for a very effective attack on the muddle that is admitted by that loyal Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. He is quite right to do so and the persons responsible really need to sort themselves out. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will tell us that all is now well. The terms of the Motion are: To call attention to the case for a coherent policy for food production which will give assurance to consumers about quality and safety and allow them more say in determining food policy;". I am not sure that I agree with the last part of the Motion, because in what they buy consumers have an enormous amount of say in determining food policy. They need to be informed and consulted, but whether they should have more say than they already have, I would not entirely know.

I am not going to deal with the aspects of safety and hygiene and the recent scares because my noble friend Lord Winstanley has already dealt with them, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I enjoyed my noble friend's speech. I was amazed to be informed that the Americans suffered from bovine tuberculosis through drinking milk. The Americans I knew in the Eighth Air Force never drank any milk at all; they seemed to spend their time drinking dry every pub in the area. But one is always learning something new.

I wish to look at this problem in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. The first point about a coherent policy for food is that there must be enough of it to feed the people and to give them a choice. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, mentioned this. I have the surplus figures for 1988. Butter is now down to 26ŀ5 days' consumption; beef at 20ŀ6 days' consumption; wheat at 22 days' consumption and barley at 25. Allied to this is the fact that in 1988 the forecast is for a 28 per cent. drop in real farm income.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Kimball, will not mind me quoting him continually. He mentioned the fact that we have so interfered with the ecology of the world that we are not very sure whether this is a normal drought cycle or whether we are exaggerating it. I was rather perturbed to find that Pepys had an entry in his Diary showing that in the 1600s roses were blooming in January and other strange events were happening. Flying over vast areas of Africa that used to be virgin forest one sees desert below and man encroaching everywhere. We are in a situation where we need to be very careful before we destroy the very efficient production of food which we have in Europe today.

The EC has had a tremendous achievement in raising our self-sufficiency and exceeding it to a degree that we can export food. We have a right in the EC and in Britain to produce food that we eat ourselves and that which is needed for supply to people who have not enough. What we have no right to do is to go on producing food, dumping it on the world markets and destroying the living and the prosperity of the New Zealanders, for example, who are very efficient. We have not got the right to do that. A long time ago Sub-Committee D recommended that we should have a policy of price restraint that would have taken care of the problem.

The situation in the world is quite extraordinary. My thinking is much affected by having just been in Kenya for a fortnight where I was attending a conference of Royal Agricultural Societies from all over the Commonwealth. When Kenya achieved independence 20 years ago it had a population of 7 million people; it now has approximately 24 million. The population is due to double again in the next 10 years. We had a long talk and a lecture from Dr. Kurien of India who considers that India will have a population of well over a 1,000 million by the turn of the century. That makes our so-called surpluses look a little silly.

I believe that in any coherent policy the security of supply must be paramount. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has defended and extolled the food manufacturers, but I must point out that farm incomes have dropped by 28 per cent. It cannot be long before we have a fall in production. The noble potato is sold at the farm gate for 3p per pound and retails in shops for 10p, 12p, 14p or 15p per pound. The industry which processes potatoes into chips and so on buys from the farmer £125 million of potatoes a year, but we are told in its literature that the processed product retails for £1 billion, which is a multiplication factor of eight. The Consumers' Association would do well to look at that difference instead of looking at the miserable 3p which the farmer receives.

In Kenya I found it extraordinary to look at the Masai who keep herds of cattle on the high ground. I found enormously healthy looking herds. The people in their traditional clothes were able to run around their cattle like sheepdogs would in this country. These magnificent looking people live on a mixture of blood, beef and meal. They are as healthy a set of specimens as I have seen. Whether we could use such a diet I very much doubt, but it shows that there is a good deal to be said for being used to a diet, as was said about the Americans, and about the difference in human reactions.

In Europe and in this country we produce more than we need. Some land will have to be taken out of production. The Government have produced a set-aside scheme which is full of inconsistencies. As it goes on I am sure the Government will find a great many snags with it. On the issue of producers having some choice, we need to go further into the business of so-called organic farming. However, I would rather call it producing natural food with some taste. My noble kinsman was proud of the multiplication of the number of eggs from hens and of the number of chickens one can rear on a floor and how cheap they are. I would not eat any of the blooming things. One of my kinsmen has thousands of pigs. They produce enormous numbers of piglets which are torn away from their mothers at three weeks old. However, when he married he came to his uncle for some free-range pigs which were fed outside and had suckled with their mothers for 10 to 12 weeks. I am happy to tell the House that he bought 12 hams from me and I charged him a good price.

Extensification should be encouraged with grants. If we are to give the consumer genuine choice and quality the producer needs to be able to compete reasonably with the horrible factory farm stuff which the consumer appears to like and to buy in large quantities. Such encouragement would provide a reservoir of land in case we ever again have a long-term shortage. This is a sensible policy and one which I should like the Minister to endorse, although I very much doubt whether she will. I am sure that she would like to see a choice of these goodies on the shelves as well as the plentiful factory-farmed products.

In short, coherence of policy must involve a proper arrangement of responsibilities. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It is absolutely vital that the Ministry of Agriculture remains the main production body and remains a Ministry of great importance in this country. That is the only way that we shall have a coherent policy for the production of food.

5.5 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, we can all agree that this interesting debate on an important subject was opened most ably by my noble friend Lord Gallacher. We are in an extraordinary position. Who would have thought last summer that from November to February the media and political life would have been dominated by food and farming? I am not sure whether any of your Lordships saw the spoof headline in Private Eye: "Shock, horror: Man eats meal and lives". That was not far from being an actual headline in the press.

This is a timely debate and reflects the increased and public interest in the whole food production chain, from farm to plate. The Motion refers to, "a coherent police for food production". This must be considered alongside the present state of United Kingdom farming. One of the silliest stories in the media recently suggested that the farming lobby somehow had its foot on the neck of the Ministry of Agriculture. Farm incomes have fallen by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and are now at their lowest level since the war. They were 28 per cent. down in 1988, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. Fifty thousand full-time jobs—one third of the labour force—have been lost since 1979; and investment has fallen by 40 per cent. When considering those figures, I am tempted to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, and say, "Some lobby, some neck". My Lords, 1988 has not only seen a 28 per cent. fall in farm incomes but, to put the figures on self-sufficiency given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in another way, we now have a balance of payments deficit on food of some £5,800 million. It is 40 per cent. of the total balance of payments deficit. Only two products are now in surplus over consumption—barley and oilseed rape. I refer to last year, when I know we had some bad weather. Self-sufficiency in food has slumped. We were producing 75 per cent. of temperate foods in 1981. That rose to a peak of 82.5 per cent. and now stands at 73 per cent.

In opening the debate my noble friend Lord Gallacher referred to food consumption. There has been a dramatic change in food consumption habits. There has been a 30 per cent. reduction in home cooking over the past eight years, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. There has been a 21 per cent. increase in the consumption of chilled and ready meals. Four hundred thousand cook-chill meals are eaten every day. This has been accompanied—and it is not an accident—by a substantial increase in food poisoning of all types. The number of cases of listeriosis has trebled in five years. The number of cases of salmonella infection has increased twelvefold in six years. When considering these figures we must remember that the establishment of environmental health officers is now no fewer than 430 short as a result of Government cuts. The inspection of abattoirs to advise' on hygiene and welfare standards has fallen by 15 per cent. in the past five years.

We have to refer to salmonella. The Select Committee report of the House of Commons is published today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will agree that any objective observer would see a report of an extraordinary saga of incompetence, confusion and muddle. I have a little sympathy for the Ministry of Agriculture and for the Department of Health. They had the responsibility of informing consumers without alarming them and of attempting to avoid economic damage to the food industry. However, I am afraid that they signally failed in both respects.

The salmonella bandwagon attracted every born again food campaigner, publicity-seeking politician and sensationalising journalist in the business, in both the printed and broadcast media. But far from getting the matter into perspective, the divided responsibilities and the conflicting comments by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health have made matters worse.

Let us take just one example of this; namely, the report on Salmonella and Eggs which was produced by a working party representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of Health aid the British Egg Industry Council. There were four representatives of the Department of Health on that working party and they suggested at one point that if one used the American factor to calculate the underreporting of cases of food poisoning—that was a factor of 100—one would have a figure of 2 million cases for salmonella food poisoning in any year. Indeed, that point was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Rea.

However, on the same day, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Acheson, appeared on television and stud that he usually used the factor of 10 and not 100, so that gives a figure of 200,000 cases. There was also a survey carried out by MAFF, published in July 1988, which suggested that the correct factor was 5, which would mean 100,000 cases. Therefore it is no wonder that the consumer is confused.

In the same report, Salmonella and Eggs, it says: It is possible that imported eggs may expose consumers to the same risk of food poisoning as UK supplies. More information is needed on imported eggs". We now have the compulsory code of practice in the UK for poultry farmers with egg laying flocks. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that all imported eggs will now only come from countries with the same code of practice, which is properly enforced.

There has been reference to salmonella research. We know that the budget for such research in the Institute of Animal Health at Compton has been cut by £70,000. Moreover, the Institute of Food Research at Bristol is having to shut down its programme of research on salmonella because of a shortage of £300,000 for two years of field trials. One must compare that figure with the £19 million which the Government were prepared to spend on compensation to packing stations and egg producers and the £3 million which was actually spent.

The egg and poultry industry has suffered grave economic damage which I am afraid is substantially the responsibility of government. I ask the Minister—this is the same question asked by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy—if industry funding is not forthcoming, will the Government reinstate research at Bristol into the prevention of salmonella? Further, is the egg and the poultry industry still expected to pick up the tab of £1.68 million of' so-called "near market research" which was identified in the Barnes review?

On that aspect the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House into Agriculture and Food Research said: Salmonella is one manifestation of enteritis, which is included in the list of topics for which research is to he cut … The millions who eat eggs and poultry are more interested in an early solution to the problem of salmonella poisoning than in waiting to see whether industry will pick up the bill for the research". To put that in perspective, I was speaking only recently to a substantial producer of eggs. He has been inspected: the birds are clean; the eggs are clean; the litter is clean and all his equipment is as clean as a whistle, but the loss which he has sustained up to now is in the order of £150,000.

There is also another interesting figure which I do not think has been discussed. It was produced by Mr. Richard North, who is an independent environmental health consultant. He has calculated that 1 million people per annum are returning from trips abroad with gastro enteritis, and other similar infections, and that it is possible that 30 per cent. of all food poisoning is, in fact, of foreign origin.

No debate on agriculture and food would be complete without reference to Government pulley— or lack of it—on research and development. Indeed, the subject was raised during the debate by many noble Lords. I have already referred to the possible closure of the Institute of Food Research at Bristol. If we take the three stations of the Institute of Food Research at Bristol, Norwich and Reading, they face the possible loss of 182 jobs in food research. At Bristol, of the SO research projects which they have, no less than 31 are directly relevant to food consumption.

The business of near market research, upon which there has been, as we know, much debate, was again summed up extremely well in the report on Agricultural and Food Research when it said that, Research funded by commercial interests is bound to he open to accusations of bias in an area as sensitive as diet and nutritional value, no matter how high the quality of that research. Advice in the media is often based on shaky scientific foundations. The public would benefit from a disinterested source of information, and in the Committee's opinion it would he most advantageous for the public sector to provide it, both in meeting a perceived demand and in improving public health". I should like to ask the Minister, when she replies, what the latest information is in the matter of near market research. As she knows, 1 have put down Unstarred Questions in November 1987 and November 1988. The morale of the whole agricultural R&D sector is now at rock bottom. When will we know the Government's intentions in that area?

We do not only have the problems of the near market business to contend with, we can also all agree, and see, that there is a need for the expansion of veterinary medicine in agricultural inspection and in public health work. Many of your Lordships have referred to the possible closure of the veterinary schools at Cambridge and Glasgow. But, are noble Lords aware that the number of veterinary officers employed in the state veterinary service has gone down from 580 to 444 since 1979? That is a reduction of 23 per cent.

I shall touch but briefly on some points which are in the public eye at present and, of course, I must say a word or two about listeria. Again there have been conflicting and confusing statements by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House a clear and authoritative statement of government policy regarding unpasteurised milk and soft cheese.

In passing, I should like to point Out that unpasteurised milk has been drunk for generations by dairy farmers. their families and their workers. I wonder whether anyone has thought to examine their health records and medical history to see whether there is any history of damage.

This week we have received the Southwood Report on BSE and perhaps I may return to a q nest ion which I have put many times to the Minister. Will the Ministry he able to change its mind regarding the level of compensation which is paid for infected animals? As the Minister knows, the compensation at present is 50 per cent. of the market value. The Ministry says that that figure is fair because the infected annual is not worth very much and therefore to receive hall the full market value is fair compensation. However, the relevant point about the disease, which is borne out in the Southwood Report, is that it tends to affect a group of animals which have had a certain type of feed in the past. More important, it takes a very long time to emerge, and a farmer would know that where, in a group of animals, one has gone down animals of the same age group, which had had the same feed, would also he likely to go down with the disease. If he was unscrupulous, he might attempt to get that animal into the food chain so as to get the full value rather than half the market value. It would not cost the Government very much money to pay the full value. In fact, that point has been impressed upon them on many occasions.

I referred earlier to the dramatic change in eating habits, where there has been no accompanying change in government regulations and policy. The Institute of Food Science and Technology, which has been referred to by other noble Lords, pointed out that: Members of the Institute are obliged by their Code of Professional conduct to take, and do take, all proper steps in their power to ensure the wholesomeness and safety of the foods with which they are concerned. Despite our repeated urging, however, it is still legally possible to start or operate a food manufacturing operation or company without even one suitably qualified person … Likewise it is open to anyone to start or run a small food, catering or food retailing operation without even rudimentay knowledge of hygiene or the regulations which apply". The Institute of Environmental Health Officers has for a long time been seeking legislation to ensure that all food premises should be registered. An excellent study by Dr. Vernon Wheelock of Bradford University underlines the urgent need for a drastic overhaul of the regulatory and inspection powers required to deal with good manufacture, processing and retailing. He points out that the number of prosecutions for food hygiene offences has fallen every year since 1979. A shortage of environmental health officers means that many premises are visited only once in several years because there is no statutory requirement to visit food premises regularly.

A number of points were made in the debate, and I should like to pick up two of them. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who referred to the greenhouse effect and climatic change. That is forecast to affect us by the mid-1990s—just one farming rotation away. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie gave an interesting survey of his agricultural history. He mentioned the battery hen. It is worth reminding ourselves that the battery system was introduced before the war to overcome disease problems, including salmonella, picked up by free range or deep litter poultry. Those were the days before antibiotics.

The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, made a searching and thoughtful speech. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to the points he made. It is clear that the existing divided responsibility between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health is not working. The air is thick with suggestions for improvement a Ministry of Food. a Ministry of Food and Farming, a food standards agency or even a department of consumer affairs with responsibility for food policy. After Mr. MacGregor's and Mr.Clarke's experiences over the past few months I am not sure that Cabinet Ministers will be queuing up to fake responsibility for food policy.

However, organisation building is not enough without a fundamental change in the Government's attitude. Non-intervention, an attempt to leave everything to market forces, and deregulation, have not worked and will not work in food safety. To cut research and make the market the supreme arbiter is a classic recipe for producing the confusion and uncertainty which now exist. It is up to the Government to see that a clear lead in that whole area is given to producers, processors, retailers, and, above all, to consumers.

5.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, I cannot hope to answer all the many interesting questions that I have been asked during the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, I have a choice of goodies. I shall choose the goodies nearest to the Motion we have been debating, and in doing so I hope that other noble Lord's will forgive me.

The Motion fallaciously suggests either that the Government have no coherent food production policy or that the policy we have is ineffective. It then proceeds to compound the error through the further suggestions that our policy does not give consumers the assurance that they need about the quality and safety of our food and that insufficient account is taken of the consumer viewpoint in determining policy. I must therefore start by setting the record straight.

First, I must set out the Government's policy in this area. It is: to ensure that adequate supplies of food are available; to ensure that this food is wholesome, safe and of good quality; and to see that it is available at reasonable prices. Beyond that, it is our policy to provide guidance to consumers on what constitutes a healthy diet.

The policy is not only coherent; it is clearly comprehensive. It is also essentially consumer-orientated, since its principal aims are adequate supply, quality and safety. That is, of course, entirely as it should be. Where the protection of the nation's food supply is concerned the consumer's viewpoint is of paramount importance. Let me, therefore, outline ways in which the consumer's influence is brought to bear. Consumers do, of course, influence the food industry in the most direct way possible through their purchases; and their influence in that way has been both significant and highly beneficial. By what they buy and do not buy, consumers' wishes are made crystal clear to the multiple retailers who now dominate the trade. The multiples then translate consumer preference into stringent quality conditions on the suppliers of their "own label" goods, which in turn forces up the quality of the competing branded goods. Similar contract conditions have also helped to force up the quality of fresh foodstuffs. So consumer pressure has had a very real effect in the general improvement of quality standards that we now see reflected in the High Street. But beyond this, consumer wishes for a greater variety of food, for more sophisticated prepared dishes than in the past, have played a part in the considerable increase in the range of foods on sale. The choice available to consumers has never been greater, and their own pressure must take some of the credit for the great improvement that has been brought about.

The Motion deals specifically with the consumer's influence on government, so I should like to set out for your Lordships the steps that we take to ensure that we know and understand the viewpoint of the consumer concerning the various aspects of our food policy. Let me take as a starting point the basic consumer protection legislation in this sector—the Food Act 1984. That Act lays on the Government the responsibility to consult all interests on any proposals for subordinate legislation. Consumer organisations form part of those interests and are indeed consulted. I must emphasise to your Lordships that this is our invariable approach, quite regardless of the statutory obligation. Your Lordships will be aware of the momentum of the harmonisation programme in Brussels as the Community prepares itself for 1992. Many proposals are involved that relate to food questions, and we always obtain the views of consumers on these in assessing what the UK's negotiating position should be. In the course of 1988 alone we undertook such consultations on no fewer than 38 separate occasions, and our consideration of the matters under discussion was greatly aided as a result of the advice and assistance that we received from the bodies we approached.

My department was recently asked in another place to list the measures enacted in the past three years to improve the quality and wholesomeness of food. The reply listed no fewer than 49 such measures, dealing with the full range of food products from meat and milk to vegetables, olive oil, soft drinks and the labelling of alcoholic drinks. Many other matters were also mentioned as still being under discussion. I remind the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that consumer organisations and their advisers are taken fully into account in the policy that we have formulated.

Let me make clear also that our consultations do not stop at the main national organisations. As your Lordships would expect, we always seek the views of the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the Consumers in the European Community Group, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Association of Townswomen's Guilds. But we go well beyond that list and, depending upon the precise subject, we may well consult anything up to, and sometimes over, 100 organisations. Incidentally, we also approach the professional organisations representing environmental health officers, trading standards officers and public analysts, whose membership is also highly consumer-orientated.

The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, spoke about a food consumers' committee. He repeated his arguments from earlier debates for such a committee. As I have been at pains to show, the Government recognise the importance of involving consumer organisations in the continuing discussions on future development of food and agricultural policy; but there is already substantial consultation machinery for both formal and informal discussions by MAFF Ministers and officials with consumer organisations on food and agriculture issues. Those channels are already well used.

My Minister in another place has recognised that there may be scope for improvement in the consultation process. We are always ready to consider how this may be achieved. Ministers have studied relevant recommendations in the recent report by the National Consumer Council, in particular Recommendation 21 which will be further considered by the NCC in the light of future proposals.

I have spoken about consultation, but my department is also involved in discussions with consumer interests; for example, in the contributions they make at specialist seminars in this sector. My officials were involved in discussions at seminars and similar events on average more than once a month throughout 1988.

I hope I have made clear the deep involvement of the consumer in the evolution of policy. Consumer involvement does, however, go further into the assessment of food safety. I shall refer later to the independent expert scientific committees whose advice underpins our whole food safety policy. Clearly, some of the committees involved necessarily require a highly specialised membership in view of the detailed technical matters they have to consider. But this advice all comes together in the overview taken by the Food Advisory Committee.

For example, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will note that the Department of Health committee on toxicity in food, consumer products and the environment plays a crucial role in the assessment of safety of additives in our food. This committee takes account of factors beyond the technical considerations, so it is appropriate here for other aspects to be reflected. That is where the consumer viewpoint can most usefully be expressed. This is provided for in the current arrangements and I readily give your Lordships an assurance that this will continue.

As further evidence of our concern both to secure food safety and to ensure that consumer influence is brought to bear, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the Government's announcement on 21st February concerning our Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. This committee will, of course, have the expert membership demanded by the need to get to grips with the problem of food-borne illness from organisms such as salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. But the committee will need to consider the increasing incidence of illness in relation, among other matters, to changes in retailing and in the home. Accordingly, it will be essential for consumer views to be expressed on the situation and we shall be ensuring that consumer interests are represented by people on the committee, together with the scientific experts.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me about nutrition labelling. The Commission proposals are for a voluntary code, and there is majority support for this rather than a mandatory system. Saturated fat is not on the Commission's list for labelling but there will be further discussion. The Commission's primary list is: energy, fat, protein, carbohydrate, sugar, sodium and fibre.

I referred earlier to the variety and quality of the food in our shops today, but I must now turn to some recent concerns that have been expressed about certain aspects. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone implied, there is a yawning gap between what is good news and what is a good news story. Failure is always more interesting to the media than success and more column-inches will always be devoted to problems than to remedies. It cannot be denied that there have been, and remain, problems of some seriousness and we are most certainly not complacent. But they must be seen in the context of the safety of our food supply as a whole. The risks must be viewed in perspective and the often ill-informed and hasty judgments passed in the press must be examined against the background of the considerable resources that the Government devote to the continuing food watch that acts to provide a real and effective guarantee to the consumer. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for the excellent plug he gave for British Food and Farming Year, which we all hope will be a great success.

Let me first say a word or two about our on-going food surveillance arrangements before I go on to deal with the particular problem areas that have been referred to today. Within the MAFF, spending on policies relating to consumer protection is running at some £20 million. Well over 500 staff are engaged in this work. Many of these are highly qualified specialists—veterinarians, food scientists, professionals of other kinds. These highly trained staff provide the essential sound scientific basis to our policy work in this sector and they provide the necessary expertise that underpins our enforcement work and directs our research effort. But an extra degree of reassurance to the consumer is provided through the involvement of independent, expert scientific committees composed of specialists of the highest possible standing. They assess the situation with regard to all the areas of risk to our food and, having thoroughly assessed the facts, advise MAFF and the Department of Health as to what further research may be needed or what action should be taken. Tens of thousands of samples are examined in the course of a year. Our specialists carry out detailed analyses using the most up to date methods to check for pesticide residues, residues of veterinary drugs that may have been administered to food animals; substances that occur naturally in food products; substances that can get into food from the production process or the environment or from the materials in which they are packaged. I am delighted to be able to say that such residues as are found are well within internationally agreed safety limits. But where risks have been found, effective action has been promptly taken.

Our intervention has, for example, resulted in changed manufacturing processes for tin cans so as to avoid the use of lead solder, while the reformulation of clingfilm now avoids the leaching of chemical substances into food. Our monitoring system is both highly expert and comprehensive in its coverage and I am aware of no more effective arrangements in any other country.

The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Carter, spoke about environmental health officers—numbers and training. I am aware of the concerns expressed in various quarters about the numbers of and training needs for EHOs. The Government are considering the position. A number of departments are involved, given the wide-ranging responsibilities of the EHOs for food hygiene, pollution, housing inspection, etc. Of course it is the responsibility of local authorities to employ the staff needed to enforce statutes which it is necessary for them to enforce and, through local authorities and the professional organisations concerned, to judge the training needs.

However, central government will consider the position with the local authority and the professional interests concerned. Whatever the staffing and training problems, there is no reason to believe that the present food safety concerns are seriously increased by any shortfall. It should also be remembered that trading standards officers play an important role in enforcing regulations on chemical aspects of food safety.

The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley referred to residues of veterinary products remaining in food. All applications to use substances as veterinary medicines are carefully assessed for safety, quality and efficacy and only licensed if these conditions are satisfied. There is a major sampling programme to ensure that unsafe residues do not remain in food; 45,000 samples were taken this year.

The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, spoke about additives. I see that he is present, but I shall write to him because the answer is so long that it will take too much time to deliver tonight. The noble Earl questioned whether food additives were needed. They are only allowed where there is a proven need; for example, preservatives are needed to protect against serious microbiological risks such as botulism.

The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that there was confusion over sell-by dates. We have recently produced a booklet entitled Look at the Label. That is an extremely good, easy-to-read booklet. I advise the noble Lord to consult that excellent booklet. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, also mentioned unpasteurised milk. As the noble Lord will know, we have already begun consultations on a proposal to ban the sales of untreated milk. However, I believe that farm consumption may not he included in that ban, as that has always gone on.

The issue of information and guidance is another essential element in our policy. Guidance on the composition of food, which housewives can follow when they are shopping, was recently re-issued in our booklet Look at the Label. We also issue detailed scientific reports on our continuous food watch through the regular reports of the steering group on food surveillance. We have published 24 reports covering all aspects of the surveillance programme. These authoritative scientific assessments are all available in the Library of the House.

I must refer to the matter of research and development and stress the fact that the Government remain firmly committed to supporting basic and strategic research, as well as a work of "public good" nature in relation to such issues as food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare. Total expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food research by the agriculture departments and from the science budget will continue to amount to over £200 million per year, even after the reductions in funding for near market work.

I note the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kimball and those of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regarding veterinary training. However, time forbids me elaborating on that.

I now turn to the problems we are facing. The problem of salmonella enteritidis in eggs is one that we share with European countries generally, and indeed with the United States. The seriousness of the emergence of this particular bacterium transmissible directly into the egg must he faced. In the U.K. we have faced it squarely, and we are tackling the problem with a more comprehensive range of measures than has been introduced in any other country in the world. These measures aim to operate at every stage of production. At the very beginning of the production cycle we have taken new powers to stop the supply of products from protein processing plants where salmonella is isolated. We have also doubled the rate of inspection of those premises and we are bringing in a measure that will require daily bacteriological sampling to he undertaken there. So far as the eggs themselves are concerned, we have taken action to prevent their sale from flocks that have been identified as a source of salmonella infected eggs. Beyond this, we are now taking powers to bring in a compulsory slaughter policy so as to clean up infected laying flocks. Your Lordships will he aware that certain codes of practice have been introduced, and key provisions in these will he made statutory. Among these will be a provision for regular bacteriological monitoring of laying flocks. As the particular risks associated with eggs became clear, the Government issued guidance to the public, for example to avoid consuming raw eggs. or dishes containing them. We shall he following up this advice in the course of our full blown food hygiene education campaign that will be launched in the near future.

I listened to the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Sahowl of Abernethy, with great interest and appreciation. From one old cook to another so to speak. I am sure she realises that my noble friend Lord Dundee was jesting when he mentioned your Lordships' dining room during the course of a Parliamentary Question. We are, of course, very well looked after and we greatly appreciate the culinary efforts from which we benefit.

The second major problem has concerned listeria monocytogenes. The special difficulties here are, of course, first that the organism is widely distributed throughout the environment and hence very difficult to avoid in the use of raw food, and secondly that it multiplies at relatively low temperatures. On the credit side, it appears to be killed off by thorough cooking, and normal healthy adults can tolerate its presence without ill effects. Its growing incidence is not in dispute, though proven cases of illness that can he traced back to food are very few. The particular risks to pregnant women and to the unborn child are factors, however, that make us treat listeria very seriously. Here again we have taken prompt and very relevant action. We have, for example, 14 research projects in hand that either relate directly to listeria or include work on the organism. In particular, we are investigating the precise temperature necessary during heat treatment to kill listeria. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may care to note that special work is also in hand on the effectiveness of microwave cooking in this respect.

We have been accused in the media of doing too little over these problems and of allowing the public to get a confused idea of the risks. I hope that what I have said, even though I wanted to say a great deal more, has been sufficient to make clear the full range of the action we have taken and the very precise nature of the information and advice we have given. We cannot, of course, control how this is reflected in the press. I would suggest that such confusion as may have arisen derives from Fleet Street or Wapping rather than Whitehall or Westminster.

The inherent quality of our food is first-class and our record of safety is excellent. Certainly there have been problems, but the prompt and firm action taken by Her Majesty's Government will ensure that their effect is minimised. Undoubtedly our actions have given the consumer the protection he has a right to expect. We shall continue to give safe, good quality food for the consumer the highest priority, and in the determination of the policies to achieve this the consumer will continue to play a full and influential role.

Finally, I Must tell the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that like him I have had the great good fortune to have worked as a junior Minister in both the DoH and MAFF over the past few years. That experience has been invaluable. It has taught me that talk of interdepartmental division is nonsense. Where food is concerned, the joint responsibilities harmonise well together. Above all, the interests of the consumer are always paramount. Close collaboration between the two departments will continue in the future. as it has in the past. For heaven's sake, let us keep a sense of proportion. Do not let us become a nation of healthy hypochondriacs.

5.48 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, speaking on behalf of those who claim to be healthy and who are certainly not hypochondriacs, I must straight away say that I have no personal experience of having worked in either of the two Ministries. However, I have had extensive experience of dealing with them. Perhaps that enables me to sec the problems from a different angle.

We have had a very interesting debate this afternoon which has allowed full scope to the farming, medical, consumer and other interests to comment on this very important subject at this particularly important time. I am grateful to all the participants in the debate who have made it the lively affair it has been. I thank particularly the Minister for the spirited defence she made of her department. In particular, I thank her for mentioning the two matters which I think hold out hope for some concessions from the Ministry; namely, the specific reference to the agreement of the Minister's right honourable friend in another place which said there was scope for improvement, in consultation with consumers, in accordance with Recommendation 21 in the report of the National Consumer Council. I referred to that report in my opening speech.

I am also grateful to the Minister for her comments on environmental health officers and on the awareness which the Government have of the need for an examination of that matter. I hope that, despite the fact that many Ministries will necessarily have to be consulted, there will be considerable expedition in dealing with what is a serious issue. My Lords, with those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.