Lords Sitting of 12 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Personal Pensions
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What protection exists for individuals who accept the incentive to opt for a personal pension (as opposed to SERPS), but who later find that their expectations of a reasonable pension in retirement are likely to be disappointed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, individuals who choose to take out a personal pension are made aware that the amount that they will receive at retirement is dependent on the level of investment return achieved by the companies. After retirement part of the pension must be increased each year by the rate of price increases up to 3 per cent. If prices rise by more than 3 per cent., an addition is added to the individual's state retirement pension.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that personal pensions are currently being advertised with the statement that the incentive being provided could amount to up to £1,000? Is it not immoral to persuade people to gamble with their future in this way? What will it cost if people seek to rejoin SERPS at a later date? Will it not then have been a very costly exercise?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely up to the individual to decide whether he or she wishes to take out a personal pension and to seek appropriate advice in his or her case. In the case of personal pension schemes which are investments as defined in the Financial Services Act, persons regulated by bodies under that Act have a duty to provide the best advice on such products. It is for the individual to make arrangements for obtaining any further advice that may be necessary in the light of changing circumstances.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it not clear that these private personal pensions are becoming a much riskier deal for the ordinary person than the safe insurance pension?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, that is entirely a matter for the individual to decide in the appropriate circumstances. We believe that an individual can make that decision for himself on advice from advisers, and having read, for example, our own book, NP 41 New Pension Choices—information for employees.

Tunisia: Flood Relief Aid
2.39 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are giving, through the European Communities and in other ways, to the Government of Tunisia to help deal with the severe flooding which threatens that country's infrastructure.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have provided bilaterally 50,000 US dollars —that is to say, approximately £30,000 —for the local purchase in Tunisia of emergency supplies of blankets, mattresses and clothing for those directly affected. The relief assistance is being co-ordinated by the United Nations Disaster Relief Office (UNDRO) working in conjunction with the local Red Crescent.
The European Community has contributed 300,000 ecu (£200,000) through UNDRO for relief items, Britain's share of which amounts to some 60,000 ecu (£40,000).
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that the British public have taken holidays in Tunisia in increasing numbers, not merely because of the climate but because of the remarkable, wonderful way in which they are treated? Is he further aware that the trade balances between Tunisia and the United Kingdom have increased enormously in our favour? While I am grateful for the noble Lord's Answer, can he assure me that our Government will keep in close touch with Tunisia to see whether we can help in any other way?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. He makes a very good point that I shall draw to the attention of my honourable friend.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the great British public at the moment are very much concerned with the flooding in this country? Possibly they would like to see their own floods cleared up before we start operations in other parts of the world.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend also makes a very good point, but one that is wider than that on the Order Paper.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give any information as to whether there has been damage to crops, forestation or roads from the floods? Have there been any requests from the Tunisian Government for technical assistance to help them rebuild after such destruction?
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes, I can give the House some idea of the damage that has recently been caused. Since 21st January of this year torrential rains have caused serious floods that have severely affected more than half of Tunisian territory. Twenty-five deaths have been reported. Approximately 30,000 people have been affected.

1089
Eleven thousand houses have been destroyed. We shall continue carefully to monitor the situation in consultation with our European Community partners and UNDRO.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have been to Tunisia to see what has happened are conscious of those very brave people who are doing their best to repair the effects of this terrific onslaught, a tragedy that neither they nor anyone else expected? I am sure that the Tunisian Government will be grateful for what our Government are doing to help them in their very serious predicament.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I note and welcome what the noble Lord says.

Hong Kong: Ivory Trading
2.42 p.n.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the decision to allow Hong Kong's stocks of ivory to be traded does not contradict their own support for the banning of the ivory trade world-wide, and how they intend to ensure that it will not give scope for the further illicit slaughter of the African elephant.
Lord Reay: My Lords, both the United Kingdom and Hong Kong are fully committed to the conservaton of the African elephant. Hong Kong will comply with the ban on international commercial trade in ivory after a breathing space of six months. Since June 1989 Hong Kong has banned imports of ivory into the Territory, thereby ensuring that there is no incentive for poaching.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and sympathise over the delicate state of our relations with Hong Kong. However, is he aware of the grave concern felt in, for instance, Kenya which is making such valiant efforts to save its elephants from destruction? Can Hong Kong's existing ivory stocks be so clearly identified as to preclude their augmentation by smuggling from illicit sources during the six-month period?
Lord Reay: My Lords, vigorous controls are in force in Hong Kong to try to prevent the situation feared by my noble friend. Apart from the import ban enforced in June last year, other measures have been taken. Every trader in Hong Kong must register all stocks above 5 kilogrammes and he must possess a licence for holding them. He will receive an export licence only if the ivory comes from those registered stocks and is accompanied by valid CITES documentation. Moreover, the destination of the ivory must not be a CITES party which exercises a ban on ivory imports. We believe that the controls should ensure that there is no loophole for entry on to the market of illegal ivory.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following the first part of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, what steps are the Government taking to support African governments in the fight against elephant poachers? Does the Minister agree that supporting initiatives such as the Luangwa Intergrated Resource Development Project in Zambia could contribute substantially to the eradication of poaching?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the fight against poaching, we have provided assistance. for example, to Kenya in the form of trucks and ammunition. We are prepared to look carefully at any other requests which we may receive for such assistance. I shall look into the proposal made by the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the case that the Government's decision to allow Hong Kong's stocks of ivory to be traded contradicts their support for the banning of the ivory trade worldwide? Why have they allowed ivory trading to re-start in Hong Kong, particularly in view of what was said by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn? Valiant attempts have been made by many African governments to stamp out the trade in ivory before the African elephant is extinguished.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we entered the reservation which runs out in five months' time in order to allow traders time to dispose of their legally acquired stocks in an orderly fashion and also to enable some 3,000 ivory carvers and workers in Hong Kong to find alternative employment. We considered that to enter a reservation was the best way of meeting our responsibilities to a dependent territory without compromising our strong support for measures which are intended to secure the future of the African elephant.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister give the precise amount of ivory in Hong Kong and say what proportion of it is deemed to come from legal sources?
Lord Reay: My Lords, at present the sum total of ivory in Hong Kong is 474 tonnes. It has been investigated by the local authorities and they found no evidence to suggest that any of it was acquired illegally.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been a reduction in the illicit slaughter of elephants and, if so, can he give the present figures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have such figures but I shall gladly look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.

Education: National Curriculum Subjects
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of their assurances during proceedings on the Education Reform Bill that there would be time available for teaching subjects not included in the national curriculum, such as Latin and a second modern language, how such subjects can be included in a timetable already congested by the requirements of the national curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently described the flexibility which will be available to schools in the last two years of compulsory education. His purpose has been to establish a broad framework which will enable schools to plan for all the national curriculum subjects and religious education and for optional subjects such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness. He has invited the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council to undertake a number of tasks which will help achieve that aim.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat encouraging Answer. Does it mean that after the age of 14 it will be possible for people to vary the national curriculum and so take in not only the subjects that I have mentioned but also some other marked omissions; for example the basis of economics and home economics, which, contrary to what one might expect, cover a great deal connected with the rearing and upbringing of children and the satisfactory development of family life, which is thought to be near to the heart of the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an encouraging answer to the noble Baroness who has raised an important topic which was discussed during proceedings on the Bill and has since been a continuing concern of teachers. In his speech to the Society of Education Officers on 25th January, my right honourable friend spelt out in great detail the kind of flexibility which the noble Baroness requires. I can promise her that the flexibility to satisfy the needs of the most able and the least able and to introduce all the subjects mentioned by her will be accommodated. It is important to note that all courses, once approved, will build on attainment targets and programmes of study so that they will all be brought into the framework of the national curriculum.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are delighted that the Secretary of State is apprised of the problem. However, am I not right in saying that he has no powers to achieve the solution which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others of us have in mind? Is it not right that all he can do is to encourage? Furthermore, is not what the Minister says against all experience in education, and if there is any flexibility it is used entirely for the sake of examinations and what is compulsory? Is it not excessively optimistic to assume that the most
1092
important subject, economics, will not be crowded out if it is not necessarily to be examined and assessed? Is there not a serious problem which we must face here?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises another interesting point. It is true that the Secretary of State, who wishes to achieve flexibility, will go as far as he can under the present regulations. However, he also has intentions to amend the 1989 information regulations. From what I have heard from your Lordships, I believe that they will be approved by this House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I had not heard that before and that is welcome news. Will such an amendment of regulations be the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House so that we can bring to bear the many views which we have on these matters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say that the noble Lord has the advantage of me in terms of procedures of the House. I do not know in what form the matter will come before the House. However, I know that there will be an opportunity to make representations on the amendments.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was delighted to hear her mention religious education? Is that now included in the national curriculum because I understood that, originally, it was not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes, it is entirely within the framework of the Act.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite suggested that economics is the most important subject. Will he be good enough to let me know what direct benefit will accrue to mankind as a result of such studies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I dare not say that the study of economics is not of benefit to mankind. What is important is not only the study of economics but also vocational studies. City and Guilds, BTEC and RSA courses will all be submitted for approval and will be brought into the framework of the Act.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the importance of knowledge of economics among the largest number of people so that they are able to make a proper assessment of the policies of the Labour Party?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's comments are noted.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does it fall within the domain of the noble Baroness to see that there is a reasonable proportion of the printed word in our newspapers in regard to political matters? These days about 90 per cent. is in support of the Tory Party and 10 per cent. in support of the other parties of this political democracy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that my noble friends on this side of the House would say almost the opposite.

South Africa and Nelson Mandela: Policy
2.52 p.m
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to put the Question of which I have given Private Notice to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their policies towards South Africa have changed as a result of the release of Nelson Mandela.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am able to tell the House that a Private Notice Question in almost identical terms will be answered in another place this afternoon and that Answer will be repeated in this House in the form of a Statement. In those circumstances I did not believe it to be right to allow the Question of the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I take that as a reasonable reply.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that after the Answer to the Private Notice Question from another place, which will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Reay, my noble friend Lord Ullswater, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on electricity privatisation.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Food Safety Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment six social security orders will be taken.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to town and country planning excluding special controls in respect of buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest and in respect of hazardous substances with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments in relation
1094
to special controls in respect of buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to special controls in respect of hazardous substances with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connection with the consolidation of enactments in the Town and Country Planning Bill 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill 1990 including provisions to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 28th February
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Annan and the Lord Birkett set down for 28th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate. —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
2.54 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be

1095
agreed to. Your Lordships will probably remember that it was the recommendation of the Group on the Working of the House that there should be an annual review of any difficulties which had occurred in procedure during the past Session by the Procedure Committee.
That is what occurred at the last meeting of that committee. I believe that the report is self-explanatory but perhaps I may briefly make three points on it. First, on time limits for ministerial Statements, the present situation is that there is a 20-minute period allowed for discussion on such a Statement and that 20 minutes begins from the time when the Minister's Statement ends. That appears to be somewhat unrealistic because the average time taken during the past Session was 28 minutes and a good many discussions went on rather longer than that.
One problem about the 20-minute period running from that time is that it takes in the two main speeches from the main Opposition parties as well as the Government's reply to them. Therefore, to make it more realistic, the recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that the 20 minutes for discussion will begin when the Minister has replied to the two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. That will give a full 20-minute period of discussion to those of your Lordships on the Back Benches who wish to participate.
However, the committee also recommends that that new limit should be strictly enforced and draws attention once again to the Standing Order which states that Statements should not be made an occasion for immediate debate.
The next point I mention concerns the consideration of Commons amendments and reasons. In the last Session we went somewhat out of order on the Commons amendments, due mainly to the fact that there were such a lot of them, many on matters which we had not previously considered. Therefore, in the circumstances I believe that it was perfectly understandable that there was a certain lack of order. The committee does not propose any major alterations to our present arrangements except that we recommend that the convention against speaking after the Minister should be extended from the present rule, where it applies on Report and Third Reading, to consideration of Commons amendments and reasons. That has been considered to be the rule before, but it has never been in writing.
The third and final point is on the sub judice rule. The Leader of the House drew our attention to the fact that there was a discrepancy in the practice between the two Houses with regard to petitions for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. He consulted the Law Lords and the proposal now put before the House by the committee is that the sub judice rule should apply in future to matters which are the subject of petitions for leave to appeal to this House rather than as previously, when it applied only from the moment that leave to appeal was given.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
1. The Committee have undertaken their annual review of procedural matters in the preceding session, as recommended by the Group on the Working of the House, and endorsed by the First Report of the Procedure Committee (Session 1987–88), to determine whether any difficulties occurred which warrant report to the House. They have concluded that the attention of the House should be called to three matters; Time Limits for Ministerial Statements, Interventions in Debate and Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons. They also report on two further matters to which their attention has been called, the Sub Judice Rule and the application of the rotation rule to the Broadcasting and Hybrid Instruments Committee.
TIME LIMITS FOR MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2. In February 1988, the Committee recommended a time limit of 20 minutes for discussion of a repeated Commons Statement (1st Report, Session 1987–88). In January 1989, they recommended a similar limit for discussion of Lords Statements (1st Report, Session 1988–89). Since that Report was agreed to, the House has heard 33 Statements, and discussion exceeded the limit on 23 on them. The longest discussion time was 51 minutes. The Leader of the House did not intervene on that occasion, but he did on six of the others. The average discussion time since the House agreed to the 20 minute rule has been 28 minutes. It is clear that the present recommendation is not being followed.
3. Under Standing Order 33, Statements "should not be made the occasion for immediate debate". The Committee suggest that it would be helpful if the usual channels could, when appropriate, give an early indication that a debate is to be arranged, which might serve to curtail the immediate discussion of a Statement.
4. The Committee draw attention to the fact that recent experience indicates that the Opposition spokesmen take a considerable proportion of the 20 minutes allowed for discussion. They suggest that the Leaders and Whips should take steps to ensure that interventions by front bench spokesmen are in accordance with the spirit of Standing Order 33. In order to preserve the rights of back benchers, they recommend that the time limit of 20 minutes for discussion of a Statement should begin when the Minister has replied to the two Opposition spokesmen. They further recommend that this new limit should be strictly enforced, and that the Leader of the House, with the co-operation of the Opposition front benches, should have the responsibility of calling the attention of the House to any failure to comply with this limit.
INTERVENTIONS IN DEBATE
5. The Brief Guide contains the following passage, headed
INTERVENTION:
"A speaker may be questioned about a point that he has raised, but such interruptions should be brief, especially in time-related debates" (p 8).
No guidance on this subject, however, appears in the Companion.
6. The Committee recommend, in the light of a series of incidents during 1989, the following guidance:
"A Lord who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House. It is, however, recognised that a Lord may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance when he is in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption or in time-limited proceedings. Lengthy or frequent intervention, even with the consent of the Lord speaking, is undesirable."
CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
7. During the 1989 spill-over, the House spent 20 hours spread over 6 days considering 1100 Commons amendments to 4 major bills (Football Spectators Bill [HL], 2 November; Companies Bill [HL], 7, 9 and 13 November; Children Bill [in], 8 November; Local Government and Housing Bill, 14 November), at an average rate of just under one amendment a minute. There were complaints from all sides of the House about the scale of the amendments; but that is a matter for the Government. In the circumstances, the Committee believe that the procedures, of the House which were fashioned in days when legislation was a more leisurely process, coped remarkably well.
8. Nevertheless, the principles of orderly debate in the House were frequently overlooked. Lords spoke more than once to a

1097
motion, and those who were entitled to do so by leave of the House (usually the Minister) omitted to seek leave; Lords continued the debate after the mover of the motion or amendment had replied, and even where the formula "Before the noble Lord sits down" would have brought the proceedings within the limits of the acceptable, it was omitted.
9. One particular procedural question calls for resolution. In debate on an amendment to a Commons amendment to the Football Spectators Bill, a member of the House who spoke after the Minister was called to order (2nd Nov., col. 394). The House agreed in January 1988 that it was undesirable for Lords other than the mover of the amendment to speak (except for elucidation) after the Minister on Report and Third Reading, unless the Minister had deliberately spoken early. But nothing was then said about consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons. The Committee consider that the convention against speaking after the Minister makes for orderly debate, and recommend that it be explicitly extended to consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons.
SUB JUDICE RULE
10. The House has agreed (First Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 1963–64) that the practice governing motions and questions relating to matters sub judice should be similar in both Houses of Parliament. The Leader of the House has drawn to the attention of the Committee a discrepancy in the practice of the two Houses so far as petitions for leave to appeal to the House of Lords are concerned. In the House of Commons, a case is deemed to be sub judice from the moment a petition for leave is presented to the House of Lords. In the Lords, however, the sub judice rule is held to apply only from the moment that leave to appeal is given.
11. In the light of unanimous advice from the Law Lords, the Committee recommended that the practice of this House should be assimilated to that of the House of Commons, so that, in future, the sub judice rule would apply to matters which are the subject of petitions for leave to appeal to this House.
APPLICATION OF ROTATION RULE TO BROADCASTING AND HYBRID INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEES
12. The Committee recommend that the rotation rule, which is applied to most Select Committees of the House in order to secure a regular turnover of membership, should be applied to the Broadcasting Committee provided that no more than two members retire per session, and to the Hybrid Instruments Committee provided that no more than one member retires per session.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the House ought to feel considerable concern about this report, which reveals a rather alarming situation. If we continue down the way we have been travelling we are in danger of moving further along the path of needing a Speaker to keep order. I shall not discuss all the items; many of them will reappear. The particular issue to which the noble Lord referred —the question of speaking after the Minister has spoken on a Commons amendment —reveals a serious situation, because your Lordships know that amendments come from another House which have not been adequately debated. We then have the Minister speaking, we hope early on, when the amendment really ought to be discussed in some Committee form.
I hope your Lordships will not take this as a lighthearted matter. The noble Lord the Leader of the House —and it is no good the Chief Whip looking so angry as he always does on these occasions; I am glad to see he is not so angry now —exercises considerable charm, but he needs to take a tougher line both with the Opposition and himelf. A number of noble Lords have been out of order on a number of occasions. I do not think we shall finish this subject just by agreeing to the Motion today. There
1098
are a number of other aspects. Unless the Government can get their programme under control and ensure that amendments coming to the House of Lords from the Commons do not represent almost a new Bill, as they do on occasions, we shall have trouble like this again.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord. The subject was discussed fully in committee and I think, and hope, that the very exceptional circumstances in the last Session will not apply again.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should also like to support my noble friend. Twenty minutes for discussion after the Government have made a Statement is quite inadequate, and Statements from the Government have become longer and longer. When I first came to this House a Statement was a Statement and did not contain so many contentious matters so that automatically the Opposition parties have a lot to say about it.
The committee probably did not look at this matter quite as seriously as it should have done. If the Statement is to be followed by only a short debate, the Statement itself should be short.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may speak again. I understand what the noble Baroness says, but the point is that a Statement should not be made the subject of immediate debate. A debate should perhaps be held at a later time if it is an important Statement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would draw attention, as he did not in his admirably succinct opening, to what seems to be a very useful alteration of the rule in respect of giving way during a speech. Several noble Lords have been concerned that, with the growth in time-limited debates, sometimes involving speeches limited to a very short duration indeed (the more popular the subject the shorter the duration of the speech), the speaker in question is put in a very difficult position as to whether to give way. If he does not give way he is thought to be not acting in accordance with the spirit of the House; if he gives way in the course of a four or five-minute speech, he wrecks the speech. It is extremely useful that the Select Committee has firmly laid down that during a time-limited debate a person speaking can refuse to give way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "food" and other basic expressions]:
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert —
("(aa) articles and substances of no nutritional value which are used for human consumption;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing Amendment No. 1 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Your Lordships will remember that we had a useful discussion at Committee stage about the definition of food. I undertook to consider a government amendment to bring within the definition items such as certain slimming aids which we would not normally regard as food but which were marketed for human consumption. Amendment No. 1 has this effect.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out that the existing wording of the Bill seemed only to cover oysters, which are fish for the purposes of this Bill, because fish are defined in Clause 53(1) to include molluscs. Amendment No. 3 enables the Bill to apply to live creatures whenever they are used for human consumption. This brings in other creatures eaten live such as elvers. Amendment No. 2 ensures that the definition of ingredients covers all ingredients of things classed as food.
I should point out that these amendments are only the first three of a quartet. There is one further amendment which I regret has caused some difficulty and which we have not been able to finalise in time to table for Report stage. This amendment will make the reference to "drugs" in line 16 more precise, thus avoiding any undue degree of overlap between food and medicines legislation. However, it must also be drafted to ensure that there is no gap; in other words, so that medicines such as cough sweets are properly controlled and labelled. This will be the subject of an amendment in due course. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we did not originally raise the query from these Benches but we were happy to see that it was raised and equally happy with the explanation the noble Baroness has given of the amendments now before us. We note that we are to await a further amendment regarding drugs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("drink or such products") and insert ("anything falling within this subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("commonly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 107 and 110. This group of amendments follows up the commitments given at Committee stage to extend, or to consider extending, statutory consultation to various regulation- and order-making powers where the Bill did not already require it. I made clear at Committee stage that I
1100
am very much in favour of consulting, whenever possible, on proposals for secondary legislation. I hinted at some of the areas in which I saw statutory consultations as appropriate. The main effect of Amendment No. 107 is that Ministers will be required to consult with interested organisations on all regulations and orders made under the Bill, other than the handful of powers where statutory consultation would not be appropriate for very good reasons.
The exceptions fall into three categories. First, there are two powers which might have to be used in an emergency with no time for statutory consultation: the emergency control order powers and powers to prohibit imports of specified foods. Secondly, there are two powers where statutory consultation would be pointless; powers to make orders to obtain information or food samples, which we would use only if voluntary approaches had failed, and regulations implementing directly applicable European Community provisions in the UK.
Thirdly, towards the end of the Bill there are various technical order-making powers for the making of commencement orders. Clause 59 is one example for which consultation would not normally be provided. The requirement to consult on orders under Clause 5(4) to allocate functions between food authorities causes one technical problem to which I alluded at Committee stage. An order under Clause 5(4) will be needed as soon as the first provision of the Bill comes into force so that food authorities are clear about their responsibilities.
To overcome this problem Amendment No. 107 contains a provision that will allow the necessary consultations to be carried out before the Bill starts to come into force. The other aspects of this group of amendments are all technical. As well as adding the requirements on consultations, Amendment No. 107 sweeps up all the provisions of Clause 48 regarding statutory instruments into Clause 47. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this amendment which incorporates one I moved at Committee stage, which was Amendment No. 19 at that time. I believe that she has covered the situation quite satisfactorily.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this combination of procedures that my noble friend is proposing is the right one. It is absolutely excellent that the relevant groups representing various interests, which means representing consumer interests as well as those of the producers, should be consulted, and then should follow the parliamentary procedure, so that Parliament has a look at whatever the Government propose. In these circumstances that seems the right way to do things except, as my noble friend said, when there is an extreme emergency, when the procedure would take too long. I personally am extremely appreciative of what she has done.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carter raised a question at Committee stage

1101
concerning the breadth of consultation which the Government envisage. I wish to reinforce the plea he made then: namely, that, when consulting, the Government will give a commitment that they will consult as broadly and as widely as possible with organisations likely to have an interest in the matter.
I ask the Minister whether the effect of the amendment on ministerial directions, which we understand may be issued without consultations —for example, directions under Clause 6(3) which remove functions from food authorities to the relevant Government department —may be carried out without discussion with the food authorities or other bodies concerned. We are wondering whether the Government at this late stage will consider extending their consultation commitment to include ministerial direction.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can answer the first part of the noble Lord's question in the affirmative. I believe that we have gone about as far as we can, but I shall take note of what the noble Lord has said because, as he will be well aware, there will always be chances in another place to add or take away from whatever is written.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Extended meaning of "sale" etc.]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 7, and also to the Government Amendment No. 6. At Committee stage I drew attention to the fact that Clause 2(1)(b) in the Bill was too all-encompassing and gave Ministers more or less unlimited power to make orders concerning practically anything to do with food. In my two amendments, Nos. 5 and 7, I seek in a modest way to reduce the total comprehensiveness of this subsection.
My noble friend the Minister kindly discussed this matter with me earlier. She has come forward with another way of doing much the same thing. Both suggestions are not entirely satisfactory in the sense of restraining Ministers from making orders because they have pretty good powers even with my amendments, let alone those of my noble friends. I am most grateful to my noble friend for trying to make it appear at any rate as though these powers are limited.
The main consideration is the amendment which we have just agreed to. The new subsection (4) of Clause 47 will make it compulsory to consult about an order of this nature. So one hopes that the people who appear to be interested will be able to restrain Ministers if great powers go to their heads. I do not propose to quarrel with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's wish to narrow slightly the scope of the order-making power to extend the definition of "sale" in respect of food and to curb unruly Ministers, though I believe he need have no fear of that. My noble friend and others expressed concern at Committee stage about the breadth of this power. We have reflected further on this matter, as he is well aware, and our Amendment No. 6 is tabled to meet my noble friend's concern.
Moreover, as my noble friend has just reminded us, we promised to provide for statutory consultation on orders made under Clause 2. That has now been achieved by the Government amendment to Clause 47 which we have just discussed. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 and to leave standing Government Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("such other thing done with respect to food as may be") and insert ("other thing which is done with respect to food and is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Ministers having functions under Act]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 27, after ("means") insert (", subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 41, 112, 113 and 114. The purpose of these amendments is to alter the powers to make emergency control orders under Clause 13 of the Bill. As presently drafted, an order made by the Minister of Agriculture can extend only to England and Wales. In normal circumstances this would be adequate and orders relating to Scotland would be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
However, circumstances could well arise involving both England and Scotland. For instance, if meat pies accidentally contaminated with glass were made in the North of England and distributed in Scotland, an order covering both England and Scotland would then be necessary. It would of course be possible to do this by having an order signed by both the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State. But noble Lords will appreciate that speed is of the essence in making orders.
Extending the powers of the Minister to Scotland reduces the possibility of a delay which could have potentially disastrous consequences. The problem does not arise in the case of a Scottish order because the Secretary of State for Scotland already has powers to make orders including England, should they be necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Food Safety Agency
.—(1) The Minister shall as soon as practicable establish an independent Food Safety Agency comprising representatives of—

(a) consumers;

(b) food producers;

(c) food authorities; and

(d) the Minister and the Secretary of State.

(2) The Agency shall —

(a) review the operation of this Act and make any recommendation as to future legislation;

(b) submit an annual report to Parliament on food safety; and

(c) produce national guidelines for the inspection and sampling of food and the enforcement of standards determined under this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems in part from the experience which we had at the Committee stage of the Bill when we tried to persuade the Government to accept a somewhat lesser proposal. Not merely did we fail in that task but we were rather rebuffed for our unwanted initiative. That has forced us to the situation where those of us who believed in the policy of the half loaf now have had to acknowledge the fact that the people who told us that we were wrong by proceeding in that fashion were, after all, correct. What we are seeking to do today is to write into the Bill an obligation on the Minister to establish as soon as practicable an independent food safety agency. That is what the amendment proposes.
Some background is, however, necessary in order that the House may be aware of the circumstances surrounding the amendment. The Minister of Agriculture announced on 2nd November last year the setting up of an internal food safety directorate within his ministry. The announcement took place ahead of the Bill. At the same time he also announced the creation of a consumer panel. At the Committee stage the Opposition tried modestly to change the food safety directorate as announced in November from a wholly internal ministerial body to one including an independent chairman together with representatives of professional bodies representing environmental health officers, trading standards officers and public analysts, with some access to the agency by and from the newly created consumer panel. That was unacceptable to the Government.
As a consequence we are now proposing the kind of body which is generally favoured by informed public opinion at the present time. We propose an independent food safety agency comprising representatives of consumers, food producers, food authorities, as defined in the Bill, as well as the Minister and the Secretary of State. The function of this independent food safety agency would be to review the operation of the Act itself and to make recommendations in the light of that review as to future legislation. We believe that food safety will not be wholly catered for as soon as the Bill passes into law but will be an ongoing subject. In order to cater for that we believe that the task of the food safety agency should be one of continuous review. We believe also that the agency should report
1104
annually to both Houses of Parliament on food safety.
At the present time when food emergencies arise, Statements are made in both Houses of Parliament as to the nature of the emergency and the action being taken to deal with it. As far as it goes one must say that those Statements are satisfactory. However, at present there is no annual review of experience during the year with food safety in general. The amendment seeks to put that right by placing on the independent food safety agency the obligation to report annually to Parliament on the overall question of food safety.
Lastly, we envisage the agency having the task of producing national guidelines for inspection and sampling of food and the enforcement of standards under the Act. Why do we feel that there is scope for such a body and a need to spell out in legislation the task which we feel it ought to discharge? It is increasingly obvious that an informed and representative body of public opinion in this country believes there must be an external input in an area of growing concern to consumers. I need not spell it out in any detail because I am sure noble Lords are well aware of the concern not merely about particular incidents but about the overall question of food safety, with particular regard to food poisoning, salmonella and listeria which have occupied us so seriously in the past couple of years. These are subjects which require independent examination so that the public at large can be assured that not merely is the Ministry concerned but that some degree of public oversight is being exercised in this vitally important area.
The Bill itself is the result of the concern of consumers and laudably seeks to improve safety measures by keener inspection and tougher penalties. We applaud those objectives but we still recognise that the Bill lacks the independence and openness which those who speak for consumers desire. The Act will need to be reviewed in any case, and certain questions will be asked. For example, are food authorities under the Act discharging their duties? Are they adequately funded in order to discharge those duties? Are food producers, both primary producers and processors, doing what the Act requires of them? These tasks can be discharged by an independent agency in full co-operation with Ministers. The agency can recommend to Ministers what changes it feels are required. The obligation to report annually to Parliament is vitally important. It is significant that no body exists at present. In consequence there is no such annual reporting at the present time.
Another important aspect of its work will be to comment on the use of delegated powers under the Bill. Good as the Bill is, undoubtedly most of the real mechanics which the Bill seeks to create will be in the form of delegated powers. It is important that an independent body should have a look, on an ongoing basis, at the use being made of such delegated powers. We would also empower the agency to produce national guidelines for the inspection and sampling of food and the enforcement of standards under the Act. I ask myself—and those who advise me ask

1105
themselves—whether the Minister of Agriculture can have any real objection to constructive proposals of this kind.
These proposals are implicit in the Bill itself. The sharing of responsibility for them can only be objected to by those who believe that paternalism must dominate the relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture and consumers in Britain. Sharing responsibility is a logical concept in a Bill of this kind which is basically the product of public concern. If the Government choose to reject what we propose, not merely will they be sending the wrong signals to all with an involvement in food —that is to say, all of us —but they will bring about an irresistible clamour for the establishment of a wholly independent body to act for and on behalf of consumers. For those and many other reasons with which I shall not trouble the House, I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, despite the eloquent way in which the amendment was moved, I very much hope that my noble friend will resist the temptation to accept it. What is the point of giving duties to a government department and then saying that, whatever the temptation may be, we do not trust that government department and we shall set up another organisation to double bank it? That seems to be a policy of despair. How many people are likely to serve on this food safety agency? Every section of the food producing industry would have to be represented. Every section of the country would have to be represented. By the end of the process it would be a very large body.
If the body were to be of any use it would, in pursuance of two of its duties under subsection (2)(a), be in great haste to make recommendations for future legislation. One of the ambitions that I cherish in a modest way is to reduce this overwhelming Niagara of legislation to something of a trickle. We should discourage it from becoming a tidal wave which would inundate us all. I very much wonder whether we need to have more annual reports. Before we set up bodies which are encouraged to deliver more annual reports we should think very carefully. Much the same considerations apply to bodies which will threaten us with national guidelines. One wonders who will read such documents with avidity. Who will read annual reports with avidity and interest? Who will follow the national guidelines and who will see that the national guidelines are duly observed? I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. It is a fact, sad though it may be, that public confidence has suffered enormously, especially since December 1988. However, that was not, as was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, due to unease as regards the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; it is because there is a general lack of confidence in
1106
new technologies used in many practices in food processing, and so on.
The amendment seeks to create a consensus, which seems to be sadly missing in this country, on the way in which food safety should be approached. Such a body, constituted in the way proposed, would give the public the feeling —and, I suggest, the evidence —that all those concerned right the way through the food chain were doing their utmost to deal with the problems which have given rise to some of these fears, especially as regards eggs, chickens, cook-chill foods and in particular microwave cooking.
There is a strong feeling abroad that there is too little consumer input into decisions which are made which lead to government legislation. It is in the spirit of consensus that I suggest that this amendment should be accepted and I urge your Lordships to support it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on the face of it, when it is suggested to your Lordships in the course of debating legislation that such and such a body should be set up, it always seems an attractive proposition. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made it sound as though the proposed body would increase public confidence and reduce the concern about salmonella and chickens.
Those of us who have served on such quangos where you have one, two or three representatives of disparate groups of people —including those who eat the food, those who shop for food, those who supply the food, those who sell the food and, of course, representatives of Government —know that such people sit around at meeting after meeting deciding what to say to the Government. Thereafter, the government of the day, after consultation with Parliament, has to decide what to do. Anyone who has been concerned in such a quango knows that it is a very slow moving process and that it is not really representative of public opinion.
It seems to me that it would be far better to try to move towards a situation where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food —and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland —really gets into the process of meeting the interests of the consumer as well as those of the producer. In my view this is already being done. We have the directorate which is to be set up within the Ministry, and a consumer panel. The people concerned will discuss how shoppers feel and will be answerable to Parliament. It is the voters who have an interest in this matter and not the people who happen to be put on a quango. In my view this is a very outmoded suggestion and one which is most unlikely to work. Moreover, I am somewhat surprised that two parties who aspire to being modern-minded should have suggested the introduction of such a body.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. In reply to the noble Lord who suggested that such a body would have to have a representative of every company, I must say that he obviously has no knowledge of the food federations, which are highly organised and not very extensive in character. Indeed, it would be very simple to have such representation.

1107
Why is this legislation needed? It is needed because the consumer is becoming increasingly worried about these matters. Indeed, almost daily we hear about some kind of scare in relation to food. Frankly, when I read about the amimal feed that was imported from Taiwan via Holland, I wondered, "What have we come to now?" During the war when we could not import feed we fed our cattle perfectly adequately on silage derived from produce which was actually grown in this country.
Today our food is increasingly undergoing so many processes and so much handling that it is almost impossible for us to know just how safe it is. Indeed, this morning we heard reports that Perrier water is to be tested. You would not have thought that there could be any danger in such water—or would you?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Yes you would!
Baroness Phillips: I should say to the noble and learned Lord that if it was left simply to the Almighty, then let us have it; there would not be any danger. It is the intervention of man which makes it unsuitable.
It is all very well to say that quangos consist of people who just sit around discussing matters. I have sat on quangos. I refer to the NCC. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who created the National Consumer Council. It has carried out excellent work. Of course, there were disagreements, but we always came to a useful conclusion which we passed on to the Government. We watched over matters, as indeed does the present council. Moreover, it constantly produces reports. However, I was somewhat disturbed to see that the qualification of the new chairman of the council —of whom, I must say, I have never heard as regards voluntary movements —for holding the position was that she had actually owned fisheries. That is a rather unusual qualification when I think of the distinguished ladies—and, it is mainly ladies —who have held the position of chairman of this particular body.
We need to provide for such a body under this Bill. Everyone eats food. We must watch over many matters in the field of safety, but this applies especially to food: that is, the food we eat and that we give to our children. I am quite sure that there would not be too many meetings of this particular quango. Moreover, there would be guidance, together with the back-up of the law which we seek to consolidate in the Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, the amendment proposed would ensure that food safety was looked at from a broader perspective and that it was not just the big battalions that were listened to when things went wrong. In my view, the position of the consumer has always been important. It is not at all clear that the consumer panel as envisaged at present would have any real power. Consumers need to be represented on the main body where the major recommendations are made so that their views can carry at least as much weight as those of everyone else. If that does not happen, then I fear that the
1108
credibility gap which already exists will only grow wider. For that reason above all else, I support the amendment.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned the National Consumer Council. However, I find myself very much in agreement with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. She referred to the need to protect the interests of consumers. But I wonder —and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can enlighten us upon this in greater detail —why it is that the National Consumer Council cannot do exactly what is proposed in the amendment. Surely the interests of consumers are important. Moreover, there is an existing quango which does precisely what is set out under the terms of the amendment. Therefore, we do not need any duplication in the matter because that would only add immeasurably to the cost of such exercises.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in my view this amendment is rather like the curate's egg. I think it is true to say that it is to some extent well meaning; but it is much too widely drawn. For example, what are "food authorities"? Do they represent the catering industry or the manufacturing industry? Moreover, the cost of what is proposed would be phenomenal.
As regards consumers, there is that admirable magazine entitled Which?—at least, sometimes it is admirable. It closely studies the food industry, among others. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that what is proposed would duplicate matters too greatly. We already have many food authorities set up within the Government and the real problem here is that we have a very vague definition for these matters. I do not believe that this exercise, albeit well meaning, will work.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I rejected his "half loaf- at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, promised to return with a full loaf of bread. I cannot say that I like his full loaf any better; perhaps he should stay out of the baking business! I am however grateful to the noble Lords at least for putting into their proposal how they think this agency should be structured and what it should do. Many who have made similar suggestions have not taken their thinking that far. At least the noble Lords have done us the courtesy of filling out their proposal and it therefore makes it much easier for me to comment on it.
Perhaps I may first deal with the composition of the food safety agency. Despite the presence of a representative of the Minister and the Secretary of State, I see that the intention is that the members of the agency should be independent of government. I should point out that Ministers already draw heavily upon independent advice in exercising their powers under the existing Act and they will do so under the Bill. I remind my noble friend Viscount Montgomery that the National Consumer Council is one of those bodies whose advice we carefully listen to.
Persons with backgrounds in academic life, in the food industry, in food authorities and in the

1109
consumer movement are on the Food Advisory Committee; there is a whole raft of committees of independent medical experts available to the Government through the Chief Medical Officer to advise on many facets of food safety and public health; and there are other independent committees of a scientific nature dealing with pesticides, novel foods and other similar matters. Advice from these committees is usually published and the evidence is there for all to see that Ministers almost invariably act on that advice. A great advantage of the system is its flexibility: so that the Government can go quickly and urgently as necessary to the right experts to get advice and moreover call together specific experts into an ad hoc committee when circumstances demand it.
Equally important from the point of view of today's debate, is that my right honourable friend has also set up a consumer panel. This is intended to be complementary to all the other independent committees to which I have alluded. The panel will consist of nine ordinary consumers drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. They will not represent the views of any particular consumer organisations but will represent their own views which we hope will reflect on what ordinary consumers are thinking on various food issues. The panel will be chaired by my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary who has policy responsibilities for food. It will thus create a dialogue between ordinary consumers and Ministers which should be for the benefit of both.
I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The points which he raised were reasonable and right. The same applies to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I am not sure how the proposed agency would help the noble Baroness Lady Phillips with her fears.
I now come to what the noble Lords propose that this agency should do. I note first that, apart from producing guidelines on inspections, sampling and enforcement, the agency would have no executive functions under the Bill. It would have the task of reviewing, commenting and reporting. This is perhaps the function of a permanent advisory committee rather than that of an agency. Indeed it is a job which has already in part been remitted to the Food Advisory Committee. I take it that we can therefore regard the proposal as quite distinct from some of the ideas we have heard for taking functions out of the Ministry and placing them in an agency. Such an agency would be much less directly responsible to Parliament and much worse equipped for maintaining surveillance over the whole of the food chain.
It is of course right that we should keep the operation of the Act under review. I do, however, have great doubts about setting up a statutory agency for the purpose. There are many other matters about which people feel passionately, but surely the House does not wish to set a new fashion and set up an agency to monitor the operation of every important Act we pass. This can be done by non-statutory means which is simpler and provides greater flexibility in the way the task is carried out.
1110
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that my right honourable friend the Minister is determined to put food safety and the consumer first. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is unfortunately away, paid tribute to him on Second Reading. She said that he had:
"demonstrated his commitment and that of the Government with this Bill."—[Official Report, 5/12/89; col. 779.]
When the Bill becomes an Act, we shall of course keep its operation under review and we shall call upon independent experts, through our advisory committees, and in other ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me about annual reports, to which he attached great importance, dealing with food poisoning statistics and guidelines. Food poisoning statistics are dealt with in the report by the Chief Medical Officer or the Public Health Laboratory Service. Other matters are not really cyclical and thus are not appropriate for an annual report. However, the Food Safety Directorate will publish a bulletin to keep the public informed on food issues.
Further, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised the question of guidelines for inspection, sampling and enforcement of standards. These are already provided for in Clause 39. We have agreed that the codes of practice concerned shall be subject to consultation in draft with interested parties.
I hope that with those assurances the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment. I agree with the various remarks, particularly those of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. There is good reason for keeping the whole food chain from producer through to consumer together. Perhaps we may look once more at the lead in milk case. I make no apology for citing this example yet again because it is a good one. With the whole range of responsibilities that my right honourable friend has, he was able to take thorough and comprehensive action to handle the crisis and to draw on a multiplicity of disciplines to do so. Had his responsibilities been more confined, he would not have been able to react in the same speedy and comprehensive way. This could surely have been to the detriment of the consumer. I think that I have made my case.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in this brief debate on the amendment for their contributions. I shall do my best, without taking up too much time, to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, felt that there was no justification for the proposal in the amendment. Of course, if that is a considered view then the other questions which he raised are secondary to it and relatively unimportant. The number of people to serve on the food safety agency would be for the Minister to determine. He saw no need for such bodies, yet paradoxically such bodies exist. I recall, for example, that under the agricultural marketing Acts there is provision for a consumer body which reports from time to time. The sad feature about that body is that it is underfunded and lacking the necessary power to do the job which was envisaged

1111
for it when the agricultural marketing Acts were passed in Parliament.
The noble Baroness Lady Carnegy favours the status quo. Our feeling is that the status quo, quite frankly, does not have the clout and it is in an attempt to give a new body that additional power that we have tabled the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It is not the status quo that I favour; it is the proposals in the Bill which seem to me to be attractive.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I construed that that was the line the noble Baroness was taking. If I have done her an injustice I shall read Hansard and reflect upon my unkindness to her.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, asked why the National Consumer Council could not do this job. First, it is not empowered to do so; secondly, it is not equipped to do it; thirdly, its responsibilities are not even to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Secretary of State for Health but to the Department of Trade and Industry. All those are inhibiting factors, although I wish to acknowledge what my noble friend Lady Phillips said about the useful work which the National Consumer Council does and will continue to do.
I was grateful for the point of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the amendment was good in parts. I hope that the good parts will be sufficiently appealing to him to cause him to support it, if we decide that the amendment should be tested in the Lobbies.
I turn to what the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, had to say. With great deference to the Ministry of Agriculture, it quite hopelessly misjudges the public mood as regards food safety at the present time. In that misjudgment the Ministry is not merely doing itself considerable immediate damage but it also may unwittingly be doing itself major damage, in that the public will begin to ask themselves whether the Ministry is the correct and proper body to discharge all the functions which it has under its wing and has had under its wing for so many years.
I have dealt on and off in a professional way with the Ministry of Agriculture for about 25 years. I have always admired and respected it as a Ministry. I admire the dexterity with which civil servants have been able to ride several horses at one time. However, I feel that in the past two years the public as a whole, no doubt encouraged by the media, have increasingly asked themselves whether this Ministry, which is now so heavily weighted in the direction of producers, is the proper body to speak entirely for consumers. In the face of the many cases we now have of food problems, the public ask themselves whether the Ministry is acting sufficiently promptly, bearing in mind the sharing of responsibility with the Department of Health, to allay the fears which, in my opinion, consumers legitimately have that, although the Ministry may be well intentioned, it does not apply itself with sufficient vigour to the defence of the consumer interest above everything else in this country.
1112
I am told, for example, that in 1988 a Minister admitted in another place that in that year he had met the National Farmers Union 37 times, while he had met consumers only twice in that same year. I accept that the establishment of the consumer panel and the hopes that have been expressed for it in this debate is in itself a response to what has undoubtedly been a legitimate criticism of the Ministry. However, on the basis of the role which was defined for the consumer panel in the ministerial statement of 2nd November, we ask ourselves whether it will have sufficient power and authority, even though it may be chaired by an under-secretary, to do the job which we believe needs urgently to be done and on an ongoing basis as regards food safety.
It was suggested by the noble Baroness that the agency had no executive function and that that was to be welcomed. If the question of its function needs redefinition we would be happy to agree a redefinition of function with the Minister. However, from her general approach to this matter, I gathered that there was no possible hope of the Government discussing at this stage any alternative to that which is in the Bill.
Reference was made to the many advisory committees. There are indeed a large number of advisory committees. Most of them are highly technical in character and are well manned by distinguished scientists from all fields. They give the Minister the technical advice which no doubt he feels is necessary to enable him to discharge his responsibilities under various Acts of Parliament. However, it seems to us that this proposal brings together the main categories who have a vital, distinctive interest in food safety; namely, consumers, broadly defined food producers, food authorities and the Minister, as well as the Secretary of State. We cannot for any reason at all understand why the prospect of a bulletin from the internal committee, which was also established by the Minister on 2nd November, can be expected to allay ongoing public concern. Quite frankly, it would be a miracle if all the problems associated with food safety were to disappear simply by the enactment of this Bill on the one hand and the creation of the internal and highly technical body of civil servants on the other. We do not see that as being a likely result.
We view what we are proposing not as being the establishment of an independent body such as the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States. However, we feel that if we are constantly to meet with a negative response in the light of the undoubted and legitimate concerns of consumers, eventually that may become the solution for which Britain opts. I did not feel that the Minister comprehends the public concern which surrounds this matter. Because of that, and in view of its overriding importance, I feel we must test the opinion of the House on it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I feel that I must return to this point.
Noble Lords: By leave of the House!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe I asked for the leave of the House. In any case I meant

1113
to say that. I cannot agree that the Ministry, in co-operation with the Department of Health, has come forward with this major piece of reforming consumer protection legislation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, admitted on Second Reading has been most welcomed —
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the House will excuse me interrupting, I must say that the noble Baroness is entirely out of order.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend prefaced her remarks by saying, "Before the noble Lord sits down". Surely that is good enough. I have often prefaced my remarks with those words.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kearton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos. L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Annaly, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cockfield, L.

Blatch, B.

Congleton, L.

Blyth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Boardman, L.

Cottesloe, L.

1114

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Forbes, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

Havers, L.

Renton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Davids, V.

Hives, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hood, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Savile, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seebohm, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Joseph, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Slim, V.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Layton, L.

Strathspey, L

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Tranmire, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

South Africa and Nelson Mandela: Policy
4.3 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on government policy towards South Africa following the release of Nelson Mandela. The Answer is as follows:
"We warmly welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. He symbolises the aspirations of millions of South Africans for a non-racial democratic South Africa.
"Since he has become President, Mr. de Klerk has transformed the policy of the South African Government. He has initiated a series of steps, including the commitment to abolish much of the remains of so-called petty apartheid, the unbanning of political organisations and now the release of Nelson Mandela. All these steps have been demanded time and again by the British

1115
Government, by the international community and by this House. Taken together they create a completely new climate in South Africa —a climate in which dialogue can begin about the massive task of dismantling apartheid peacefully. This new climate presents a decisive challenge to those, black and white, who wish to maintain the old orthodoxies of confrontation.
"We urge the ANC, the PAC, the Inkatha Movement, the various white parties and all other political organisations in South Africa to rise to this challenge, end violence and enter negotiations.
"It is vital to send a signal to the white community that President de Klerk's steps will find a response from the international community. That is why the British Government believe that it makes sense to stop discouraging investment and tourism in South Africa."
That concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. We most warmly welcome the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela. It is both a joy and a relief to us all. Mr. Mandela re-enters the public life of his country after more than 27 years of captivity and takes his place as the undoubted leader of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa.
We must also welcome President de Klerk's constructive action in securing Mr. Mandela's release and in lifting the ban on the ANC. We note that Mr. Mandela in his speech yesterday called Mr. de Klerk a man of integrity.
We further welcome Mr. Mandela's words that his objective is a democratic, free and multi-racial society. We welcome his commitment to peaceful solutions.
It is clear, however, that the next few weeks and months are critical. The structure of apartheid still stands virtually intact. The state of emergency still remains and the prospects of constitutional change and free elections are, to say the least, uncertain at this moment.
In those circumstances can the noble Lord say what constructive action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take? Is he aware that the raising of sanctions at this moment would be totally unhelpful? Is it not the case that the Commonwealth, the European Community and the United States believe that it is premature to withdraw sanctions now? Can the noble Lord say whether any country supports Her Majesty's Government's policy against sanctions and their efficacy?
Bearing in mind that the Community Foreign Ministers meet in Dublin later this month, does the noble Lord not consider it necessary to seek agreement for a united course of action upon which all the governments of the Community can agree? Will he not accept that the withdrawal of sanctions at this time would not achieve the unity which is so necessary now?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. We too on these Benches would like to welcome sincerely, wholeheartedly and with unqualified relief the release after 27 years of Nelson Mandela, one of the most charismatic, courageous and extraordinary people of our epoch.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to help us in certain respects, much on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Is he aware that the apartheid state has not yet been dismantled in any way? There is still a state of emergency; the Group Areas Act is still in place; the Population Registration Act is still in place; the secret service police are still active.
Does the noble Lord not agree that once more the Prime Minister is isolating this country from the rest of the world and from our friends? Can he explain the curious discrepancy between her attitude towards South Africa and her attitude towards countries in Eastern Europe? Countries in Eastern Europe are rushing towards democracy, are to hold elections on a fair and free basis, have disbanded their secret police and are entering a new phase. In response to those developments the Prime Minister urges caution. She tells us that we must be careful and wait to see what emerges. She says that our armaments must be increased next year. Yet, when the secret police are still in place in South Africa and we still await free elections and democratic politics there, she tells us that we should remove the pressures which can be argued to have brought about the changes that we all welcome.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Bonham-Carter, for their remarks. We believe that the time is now right to start to consider lifting some of the measures imposed by the international community. We shall discuss the issue with our Community partners. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked whether any other countries supported us in that regard. Other governments have indicated that they believe the time is fast approaching when it would be right to reconsider sanctions. It is therefore a matter which we shall discuss with our Community partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us that apartheid has not been dismantled and that the state of emergency, among other things, is still in place. We urge the South African Government to lift the state of emergency as soon as possible. We hope that it will eventually be possible for apartheid to be dismantled completely.
4.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I believe that I speak on behalf of all the Churches in this country in expressing our rejoicing that Nelson Mandela is free. I am thankful for President de Klerk's courage and statesmanship. It is an astonishing step forward which we could not have imagined a year ago. I hope that the next step may be the complete lifting of the state of emergency and the putting in place of a negotiating framework

1117
as outlined by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons' Group.
Together with my brother in Liverpool, Archbishop Worlock, I went to South Africa last May for three weeks. We spent a good time in more than a dozen townships. We saw the main pillars of grand apartheid firmly and oppressively in place. At the same time one of the abiding memories that we brought away was the amazing forgivingness of black people and their longing for a united, democratic South Africa.
Main-line Church leaders and community leaders whom we met repeatedly said to us, "Please tell them in England to keep up the pressures from outside". They know that they have to work out matters within South Africa, but they also know the heavy pressures that there will be on President de Klerk from those who want to keep white dominance wherever possible. Last night Mr. Mandela asked the international community to keep up the isolation of the apartheid regime until there is root and branch change to allow all South Africans to share fully in their country's future. As we praise him, should we not listen to what he says? We continue to pray for South Africa in this moment of hope and courageous risk.
Lord Reay: My Lords, in reply to the right reverend Prelate, perhaps I may say that we believe that the urgent need now is for negotiations to get under way. President de Klerk has gone a long way towards making that possible and has promised to do more. I can only repeat what I said in my original reply; namely, that we believe that it is extremely important to send a signal to the white community that the steps taken by President de Klerk will find a reply from the international community. That is the basis of our position.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, adverting to what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter referred to as a discrepancy, is not the difference between what is going on in Eastern Europe and what has just happened in southern Africa that President Gorbachev's term of office has lasted for five years and that Mr. de Klerk's has lasted for about one year? Is not the inconsistency between those who wish to praise and apply the carrot to Mr. Gorbachev and the stick and complaint to Mr. de Klerk? Is it not the truth of the matter that both are engaged on what is one of the most difficult and perhaps dangerous exercises in the whole of international politics; namely, to unscramble a highly authoritarian regime based on a false ideology? Should not both be given our wholehearted support?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords,—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords,—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, could not see behind him, but the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, tried to speak before the noble Lord rose to his feet.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps I should declare a personal interest. As some noble Lords know, I worked with Nelson Mandela, Waller Sisulu and Oliver Tambo in the 1950s and, for my pains, I was banned from South Africa 31 years ago. That ban remains today. It is therefore with a great deal of personal poignancy that I viewed the release of Nelson Mandela from one prison yesterday. But Nelson Mandela has not been freed. He has been released from one prison and he enters another. In South Africa —the South Africa that he has entered today —he is not free to live where he wishes; he has no vote and his children and grandchildren will go to schools designated by the South African state.
In his Statement the noble Lord spoke about sending a signal to the white community. What about the black community, which is four times as large? Yes —we should send a signal to the white community. Some of us have sent signals to the white community for many years in the sanctions and boycotts which have been effective. Apparently, it is only the British Prime Minister who believes that they have not played a major part in the recent loosening of the South African white regime's policies. Even President de Klerk has admitted that the economic pressures of sanctions have been a major factor in changing the situation. What signal are the British Government sending to the black people who have now been without the vote for 200 years? What signal are they sending to the black people who still live under the Group Areas Act and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said under the Population Registration Act and who still live under the state of emergency? What signal are the British Government sending to them?
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said, there are in South Africa many strong forces who will use every means, including sabotage and possibly murder, to change the lines laid down by President de Klerk. I salute him for his courage, at the moment in words, but, as Nelson Mandela said last night, we are still waiting for actions.
Is it not the case that the effect of removing sanctions tomorrow would be to sabotage the pressure from black Africans and white South Africans who would like to see President de Klerk's words put into action and a genuine non-racial democratic society created in that unhappy country? Until those actions to remove discrimination from South Africa are seen to be irreversible, sanctions should be kept as a pressure on the South African white community to end the discrimination that has existed for 200 years between white and black. Is that not the response that should be made to the release of Nelson Mandela after his 27 years of martrydom? Is that not the message that the British Government should be sending to the people of South Africa, white and black alike?
Lord Reay: My Lords, President de Klerk has met virtually all the demands which EC Ministers called for when imposing restrictive measures in 1986? the release of political prisoners, the unbanning of political organisations and the lifting of the state of emergency. We believe that the bold and courageous steps which have been taken by President de Klerk to end apartheid require a response and that this is a response which can be appreciated by all in South Africa.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not worth bearing in mind, when speaking about sanctions, that Zambian Airlines now advertise that it is the only airline that flies direct from New York to South Africa, this in spite of President Kaunda urging for an increase in sanctions? Is it not true that the Indians import vast quantities of diamonds from South Africa through companies in Mauritius? Is there not an immense amount of hypocrisy and humbug involved in the entire sanctions issue? Is it not the case that in order to produce a much more free and liberal government, the South African Government will need the help of everyone, black and white?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that the future of South Africa will not be determined by sanctions but by what happens in that country. In that respect we hope to see the development of a dialogue and the abandonment of violence.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government use what influence they have with President de Klerk to see that the police force in South Africa is brought under control? The evidence of brutality and the scenes that have been witnessed may lead one to feel that no black person could believe that negotiations would be effective while this kind of thing continues. Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to use her influence in that direction?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says and I will take it back to my right honourable friend.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we should all be delighted if a stable, prosperous, liberal, incorrupt, non-racial, multi-party democracy could be created in South Africa. Would the noble Lord acknowledge, however, that such a democracy is an extremely rare phenomenon on the African continent and that we should not therefore entertain excessive expectations? Secondly, would the noble Lord agree that African tribal minorities and Asian and European minorities have fared extremely badly on the African continent over the past few decades? Despite the undoubted good faith of Mr. Mandela, is it not the case therefore that minorities have every reason for apprehension, however groundless their fears may be considered to be by people sitting comfortably, thousands of miles away?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we utterly condemn apartheid. It has always been the objective of Her Majesty's Government to bring about the end of
1120
apartheid and we have repeatedly made that objective clear to the South African Government and to Mr. de Klerk. We believe that sanctions would worsen the situation. Undoubtedly the task ahead is massive, but we hope that that objective will acquire the support of all reasonable people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am sure that the support that President de Klerk has received from all sides of this House and another place will encourage him to continue the process of bringing real democracy to South Africa. A comparison cannot be made between what has been going on in central Europe and South Africa. No one can recognise a communist by the colour of his skin. The "offence" of millions of human beings in South Africa is not that they are communists or liberals, but that in some terrific scheme of the Almighty they were given a different skin pigmentation to that of most people in this House and another place. That must no longer be a crime; otherwise our democracy becomes a total farce.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I repeat, we utterly condemn apartheid.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to clarify one point. The noble Lord stated that a number of governments feel that the time is coming when sanctions can be abandoned. Could the noble Lord answer the question that has been put to him from both Front Benches? Does any other government agree with the British Government that the time has now come when sanctions should be abandoned?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that the Dutch Government, the United States Administration and the Australian Prime Minister have indicated that the time is fast approaching when it would be right to reconsider the question of sanctions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to praise the courage of Mr. De Klerk in doing what he has done. However, I think that we should also note the dignity and restraint of the South African black leaders and their followers. Does it not behove all of us, especially the Government, who should be taking the lead, to ensure that their restraint and diplomacy is matched by every other country, particularly the Commonwealth?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I stated in my original answer, we urge all political organisations in South Africa to rise to the immense challenge of ending violence and to enter into negotiations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, whilst President Bush, the Prime Minister of Holland and Mr. Hawke of Australia have welcomed the action of President de Klerk, none of them have said that their governments are proposing to lift sanctions now.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that the time has come to consider lifting some of the measures that have been imposed by the international community. We propose to discuss this matter further with our partners.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question? Is there any other country which believes that now is the time to lift any sanctions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, one of the purposes of the discussions that we are having with our partners is to discover their position.

Electricity Privatisation
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation, the publication of the draft regulatory licences for the industry and the non-fossil fuel obligation.
"Good progress continues to be made in preparing the electricity supply industry for vesting on 31st March. The House will be aware that the Second Commencement Order under the Electricity Act 1989 was made at the end of January.
"Today I am taking another important step towards completing the restructuring of the industry. I have today made available to the House copies of revised drafts of the licences to be issued to the successors of the CEGB and area electricity boards, which were initially published on 10th January 1989. The revised drafts take account of commitments made during the passage of the Electricity Act and consultations since the original drafts were published.
"Other licensees will receive licences based on these drafts but tailored to their particular circumstances. Regulations are being laid today setting out how to apply for a licence and the details of the application procedure. The exemption order identifying those who will not require a licence is also being tabled today.
"The principal changes in the draft licences published today are in the conditions dealing with price control, security of supply and the transition to a competitive market. The revised conditions are explained in detail in the explanatory notes that accompany the licences.
"The average price for all customers supplied by the public electricity supply companies will be controlled by an RPI-x+y formula, where y represents the actual costs to the companies of purchasing the electricity supplied. Customers taking more than 1 megawatt will benefit from the competition in supply that will be introduced by privatisation. I expect many of them to enjoy price reductions. It may take some time for customers to gain experience of the market and negotiate terms. I have therefore sought an undertaking from the industry that it will use its best endeavours to offer a one-year real price freeze to customers taking more than 1 megawatt.
1122
"Customers taking less than 1 megawatt will benefit from an addition to the price control. Although the industry has yet to propose a final figure, I see no reason why the average price to these customers should rise by much more than the current rate of inflation this year. The price control should prevent any further real increase before the end of March 1993. Indeed the public electricity supply companies could well be able to offer some real price reductions to these customers in this period.
"I believe that the combination of these controls will be more effective than the yardstick price control proposed in the original draft licences. Altogether I do not expect the average price for all customers to rise in real terms this year.
"All of these expectations on prices allow for the effect of the fossil fuel levy, which I intend to set for 1990–91 at a rate of 10.6 per cent. on the value of final sales. I expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years. I shall shortly be laying the regulations under which the levy will be established and collected.
"I also intend to lay at the same time an order setting the initial non-fossil fuel obligation for the public electricity supply companies. The intention of the obligation is not only to ensure that existing and committed nuclear plant in England and Wales is contracted for; it is also to encourage the development of commercial renewable energy sources. Around 300 projects have been put forward to the area boards in response to this policy. The Government have been extremely encouraged by this response and wish to ensure a full contribution from renewables to the NFFO. Given the size of the response, it has not been possible to assess all these projects fully by the time the initial order needs to be made.
"Accordingly, the initial order will cover nuclear capacity only. I intend to allow a further two months for the area boards to complete their negotiations with renewable operators and I shall then lay a second order relating specifically to renewables. This will ensure that renewables projects can be assessed fairly and a proper contribution obtained.
"The initial order will, therefore, amount to some 8,000 megawatts or so in total for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. As I told the House on 9th November, the Government will review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. Decisions about the level of the obligation beyond 1998 will be taken then.
"Returning to the licences, the conditions on security of supply have been amended to ensure that all suppliers meet the current standards of security except where their customers choose otherwise. Suppliers may meet this condition by becoming members of the new electricity trading pool that is being established, since the price of electricity in the pool will include a capacity charge that reflects the value of secure supply to customers. Suppliers will have economic incentives to ensure that sufficient generating plant is available. I believe that this approach

1123
will provide secure supplies more effectively than central planning by a monopoly supplier.
"As for competition in supply, the licences now incorporate provisions to implement the decisions announced on 29th September 1989. These provided for an orderly and stable transition to a fully competitive market by allowing other suppliers to compete with the area supply companies for customers taking more than 1 megawatt at the outset, for customers taking more than 100 kilowatts after four years and for all customers after eight years.
"The licences, therefore, contain corresponding transitional constraints on the premises which such competitors can supply. If they apply for licences to supply customers falling within these restrictions, I will look to the Director General of Electricity Supply to advise me on whether such licences should be issued.
"While I shall be disposed to act in accordance with the restrictions announced on 29th September, I accept that I shall need to exercise discretion to deal with particular circumstances that already exist or may arise. These cases will be considered on their merits. The licences also contain transitional limits on the extent to which National Power and PowerGen can engage in direct sales to enable competition in supply and new supply arrangements to develop.
"The arrangements that I have set out today mark the successful achievement of another stage in this privatisation. When the new companies are vested on 31st March, this country will have the most competitive electricity industry in the world. I know that those in the industry are keen to be privatised to respond to the new challenges and to rid themselves of the dead hand of the public sector. I am also sure that the public will welcome the benefits of competition and will seize the opportunity to invest in those companies."
That concludes the Statement.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating a Statement made in another place which was indeed widely advertised in the weekend press. Like many statements on electricity privatisation emerging from the Department of Energy, this Statement raises a further host of questions and does not take us a great deal further. I shall try to marshal my questions for the benefit of your Lordships because there are many, under several headings. I start first with the price increases that the Secretary of State envisages.
By indicating that the Secretary of State is prepared to accept price increases around the rate of inflation, above the rate of inflation or slightly above the rate of inflation, or price increases which are not real price increases —in other words, spot on the rate of inflation —is he not encouraging inflation psychology? After all, the CEGB has had the advantage of a coal price agreement with British Coal and its costs will be held down. Why then does it need those price increases at all? Why is the
1124
Secretary of State encouraging inflation merely in order, as we believe, to provide a return so that he can float off this industry to the public?
Secondly, on the price control formula, it appears from what the noble Viscount has said that it has now changed. He was not on the Government Front Bench when we discussed that point at considerable length when the Electricity Bill was before the House. We from this side tried to put the price formula that was then advertised by the Government into a schedule of the Bill. We were refused that. I now understand perfectly well why we were refused —because the Government continued to make up the whole thing as they went along.
We now have a new version. We have something called y, which is the cost of electricity to the public electricity suppliers. What will the contracts between the successors to the area boards and the generators be about? What term will they have? How will the pooling work? How will the spot market work? How will the settlements work? Finally, how on earth will the electricity consumer be able to determine whether his price is a fair one? He will have no idea, any more than any of us will, as to how that price is calculated.
Thirdly, on the security of supply, the Act is quite clear on the subject: the area boards or their successors have a responsibility to supply any reasonable request for electricity supply in their authorised areas. In the Statement it now appears that they "may" enter into arrangements for pooling in order to ensure continuity of supply in their authorised areas. What happens if they do not choose to enter into such arrangements? Who do we sue when the lights go out? Will it be the successors to the area boards? Who will it be?
As regards the nuclear levy, or the non-fossil-fuel obligation, we understand that this will be about 10·6 per cent., and declining. Does that tell us that the cost of nuclear energy is approximately 40 per cent. higher than the cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity? Is it not the case that the levy is only set as high as that in order that nuclear-generated electricity should be the baseload of the system rather than competing with other sources? Does the nuclear levy apply to the French interconnector or the Scottish interconnector?
Why are we no further on the question of renewables? We had assurances in this House about the share of renewables in the non-fossil-fuel obligation. The noble Viscount said there is no share at the moment. We do not know what that can possibly be. Where are we on renewables?
Turning to the licences, why is there nothing in the licences and nothing in the Statement about the encouragement of energy efficiency? That was one of the great debates that we had throughout the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. We thought the Government had conceded in principle that there would be things in the licences which would not only just promote energy efficiency but would actively promote it and make sure that public electricity suppliers ensured that energy in their authorised areas was used as efficiently as possible. There is nothing here to give us any encouragement.

1125
There are many more questions which come out of this Statement. We are only a quarter of the way towards being able to write a prospectus for the public electricity suppliers. The Department of Energy really must do much, much better than this if it is to get a flotation of public electricity suppliers away in November. The hollow laugh that one could say greets the expression that the arrangements mark the successful achievement of another stage in this privatisation is just an echo of the other hollow laughs that there have been when whoever it may be comes forward to the Government Dispatch Box and says, "We've got another marvellous wheeze." They are making the whole thing up as they go along. The aeroplane is not even on the end of the runway yet and if it belly-flops, as it will, the Government have only themselves to blame.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I must say that a Statement which is 13 pages long and which reached us less than half an hour before we had to comment on it makes considerably difficult the proper operation of the task of this House in commenting on Statements of this kind. The length and complexity of the Statement inevitably means that we almost launch into a debate on it, which I understood from comments made earlier today is exactly what we are not supposed to do in regard to Statements. So the whole approach taken in regard to this Statement is very much open to question, considering the method we now adopt.
In order not to prolong the debate, I would echo many of the points that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I shall only add a few additional or reinforcing questions. I see that on the new pricing arrangements we have a formula of RPI minus x plus y. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has asked what y is.y I will complement that question by asking what x is. It would be very nice if we could know what the whole of the formula really means, and not be blinded by algebra.
On pricing, I should like to make the comment that later on the same page, when talking about what customers can expect, the Statement says:
"I [the Secretary of State] expect many of them to enjoy price reductions."
I ask: how many? Will it be 55 per cent. or some other percentage? On what is that cheerful expectation based? Could the noble Viscount tell us why many of them should expect to enjoy reductions?
I should also like to ask him a question about renewables. There is a deep bow made here to renewables and reference is made to how delighted the Secretary of State has been at the very large number of proposals that have been put forward. Can we take it, as a result of this energy in the field of renewables, that the Government will give very serious consideration to increasing the amount of resources allowed for the development of renewables? I am sure the whole House would agree
1126
that if we could get really good renewables, about which there has been very considerable scepticism —a scepticism which I have shared on many occasions —the whole position regarding energy in the country would be greatly changed. What are the Government, in concrete terms, proposing to do to encourage the enthusiasm for renewables which is reported in this Statement?
I should like to ask also about security of supply, of which a great deal is made. Are we right in understanding, although it is not really in the Statement, that there is an arrangement with Scottish producers and also with French producers for ensuring certainty of supply? What are these arrangements? To what extent are they reliable and are we taking any line regarding the fact that the great mass of electricity we shall draw from France, if we do draw from France, will be nuclear generated?
Also, we understood that large producers would be able to get a substantial reduction. It seems from the Statement that there is to be a pause in the case of large production going direct to the generators. Am I right in interpreting that as meaning that there is to be a pause of a year before it will be possible to go direct to the generators? Obviously it would save them a considerable amount if they could do it because it would cut out one profit level and it would also mean that they would not have to bear their share of the nuclear contribution. There are many other points one could raise, but that would turn this into a debate.
My final question is, I suppose, a rhetorical one. In view of the high cost of nuclear power which this Statement supports, do the Government really think it is sensible to go on with Sizewell B?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their guarded welcome to this Statement. I would say that the progress of privatisation is running on speed, and everything that is being done according to plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams asked me some questions and I shall do my best, in a limited time, to answer them. He suggested that the prices, now that the coal contracts have been secured, should not be allowed to rise at all. Certainly the Statement says that prices will only rise at the rate of, or just about the rate of, inflation. I should like to remind the noble Lord that prices are lower in real terms that they were five years ago. It is natural that prices should have risen over the last two years as the surplus of capacity in the system has declined. The industry should be able to finance new investment at current price levels, and the returns are not excessive.
Regarding security of supply, about which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked, it is very much the pool price that will contain a capacity charge that will ensure that sufficient power stations are built to ensure security to current standards. Competition will help to ensure that they are built at the lowest cost. Licence conditions on all suppliers will enshrine the current standards of security. They will also ensure that suppliers provide sufficient information to the director general to enable him to

1127
take a view on the level of security provided. If he believes that levels of security must be increased, he can seek modifications to the licence conditions by agreement or by reference to the MMC.
The noble Lord also asked me about pooling and the operation of a pool. Generating companies will sell all the energy output of their stations into the pool, from where supply companies will buy the required amounts of energy to satisfy their customers' demand. Every day each generating company will bid its price for each of its generating sets for the following day. On the basis of these offer prices the National Grid Company will schedule and dispatch all generating sets so as to meet demand at least cost.
The noble Lord also asked me about the levy and the non-fossil fuel obligation. He also inquired about why the renewables had not been included so far. As the Statement said, there are a number of projects, 300 in all, which have not had time to be assessed in order to be included in today's Statement. The non-fossil fuel obligation will include the building of Sizewell B but no further nuclear stations. As has been reported, the nuclear option will be reviewed in 1994. The French connector will not be subject to the non-fossil fuel obligation; nor will it be subject to the levy.
The levy is not additional money required to run the nuclear stations. The cost of electricity at the moment includes the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power. The levy makes it much more transparent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me what the x factor was in the price formula that I read out. The x factors in the licence control various parts of the final price. One will limit increases in the grid companies' transmission charges; others will limit increases in the area boards' distribution charges and supply margins. It is a fairly technical and complicated subject. I could go into it in more detail but perhaps it would not be right at the moment.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord and I would not be much the wiser!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness also asked me whether the generators could supply direct during the current phase, during the first year. The answer is yes. They are allowed to supply direct to a certain percentage of the market which will not be more than 15 per cent. in any one individual supply area. I hope that I have dealt with all the points.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend pleasantly aware that no one will envy him the task of explaining the Government's plan to your Lordships' House? He enjoys a measure of protection both from the rules which were referred to earlier this afternoon which forbid debate now and by virtue of the complexity of the plan which is quite impossible to digest simply by hearing it once. However, I should like to ask him two questions. First, he claims that everything that has been done
1128
is being done according to plan. Would he please seek an early opportunity to inform the House what that plan is, with a reasonable statement as to the time element in it? Secondly, how do the Government justify the retention of the fossil fuel levy —it was an idea originally introduced in order to protect those private owners of nuclear power stations—without doing anything so far as one knows in the field of energy saving? Although my noble friend did not have the conduct of the Bill, does he not recall that a very large element in the debate on the Bill expressed disappointment at the fact that the Government did not give adequate emphasis to this extremely important factor?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that he should not confuse a radical change for the electricity industry with the muddle as he sees it. The electricity industry is going through a radical change. It is certainly not as he describes it.
I have suggested in the Statement that we are on target for vesting on 31st March. That will continue and that date will be met. As my noble friend knows, it is intended that the sale of the public electricity industry's suppliers will be later on in the autumn of this year and the generators in the first half of next year.
On the fossil fuel levy and why we need to continue with it, it has always been accepted that nuclear costs are higher than fossil fuel costs. The fossil fuel levy evens out the amount of money between the two generating systems. Also the nuclear industry is required so that we have a diversity and security of supply. Also I do not think that we should neglect the environmental benefits that we have from the nuclear industry.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the words "competition", "competitive" and so on are mentioned several times in the Statement. I have a mile of line to my farm supplied by the present electricity board. I presume that it will be taken over. That will be the line from which I obtain my supply. If I quarrel with the company, does the noble Viscount suggest that there is someone competitive enough to build another mile of line to supply me with electricity? People in many outlying areas are worred about the competition. Can the Minister give us some idea what will happen if we demand another supply?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I understand it, the transmission lines remain as a natural monopoly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that the arrangements that he set out today mark the successful achievement of another stage in the privatisation. If he will forgive some of us, we do not quite see it that way. So far the privatisation has been fraught with danger, to the extent that part of the electricity supply industry has had to be taken out of the privatisation programme. Will he tell the House, and certainly tell me, who in the industry, other than senior officials of the area boards, is keen to be privatised and to respond to these new challenges to which he refers? So far as I

1129
know, the people working in the electricity supply industry simply do not want to be privatised. They have not yet become convinced of the benefits of the industry being privatised, and nor have the consumers.
The noble Viscount referred to the dead hand of the public sector being removed from the electricity industry. Does he not appreciate and agree that a large part of the industry is being retained in the public sector —that is the nuclear part —simply and soley because the private sector is unable to make a profit out of it? Is it the case that the public sector must incur all the losses and the private sector can enjoy all the profits?
Since the nuclear industry is to remain in the public sector, can the Minister say what on earth is the benefit gained from retaining the fossil fuel levy? It does not appear to be reasonable or competent to impose such a levy, bearing in mind that the nuclear industry is to be kept in public hands.
Can the noble Viscount also answer some of the questions which have been asked? For example, can he reply to my noble friend who asked who can be sued if the lights go out? The public are entitled to know the answer. Will he also say exactly who are the consumers who will enjoy reductions in the price of electricity? That question was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Finally, what encouragement will be given to the electricity supply industry to institute the least-cost option?
The noble Baroness asked the Minister about Sizewell. There is no question that it is possible for the new electricity area boards to save the public a good deal in capital cost and in the cost of elecricity by bringing forward ideas and projects which do not involve the building of new power stations but, instead, the considerable saving of electricity to the benefit of us all and the greenhouse effect.
5 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a number of questions, including the question: why should the nuclear industry be removed? That was dealt with on a previous occasion. As I have already explained, it was the view of the proposed purchasers of the industry, who required a high rate of return in order to undertake all the unknown decommissioning costs which also had to be sold. Nuclear electricity will provide a return on its investments appropriate to the public sector. In order to do so the cost of generating nuclear electricity is higher than that from fossil fuels. Part of the reason is because the damage to the environment caused by fossil fuel generation is not costed in the price of electricity. The emissions of CO2, the global warming, is not costed. Electricity is not recovering the cost of that in order to safeguard our atmosphere. If that were to be done, no doubt it would be even more expensive than nuclear electricity —
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if that is the case for nuclear, is not the opposite true for renewables? Is it costed when calculating the cost of renewables?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the renewables will form an important part of the supply of electricity. This is being greatly encouraged by the Government, as I have stressed. The difficulty is that there are not enough renewable sources to make an impact on the requirement of electricity for the industry of this country. Our supplies cannot be guaranteed from renewables.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked: who in the industry wants privatisation? I daresay that there are a great number of such people in the industry. I have only to cast my mind back to those who were working for the road transport company and who, when it was privatised, became shareholders. Not only did the industry do well but those people became extremely rich as a result of the shares they had purchased.
The noble Lord also asked: who would have the obligation to supply? That rests with the supply companies and it is part of the licence which they will be granted and which transfers to them the obligation to supply. I also agree that the least-cost option should be fully investigated. However, a difficulty exists because at the moment we need a certain amount of generation which is being undertaken by either fossil fuel or nuclear. Until that is privatised and there is competition we are not in a position to do a great deal about those cost options. Nevertheless, they are options for the future and are most sensible.
I have been on my feet for long enough but, in order to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I wish to point out the importance of completing and Commissioning Sizewell B in order to keep open our PWR option.
Lord Peston: My Lords, there apears to be a frightful mess. Does the Minister agree that Statements made to your Lordships' House should contain material which your average Lordship can understand rather than say that it is all very difficult —although it is all very difficult? In particular, I refer to the formula set out on page 4, which I am bound to say makes no sense to me whatever. I should like to ask the Minister questions about that. However, if he cannot answer them today perhaps he will ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue a further Statement so that we can understand the situation.
Is it not the case that in an industry such as electricity, which is subject to technical advance, we would normally expect the price of the product to fall in real terms? It is a counsel of despair to suggest that its real-terms price should be constant. We undoubtedly expect the relative price of electricity to fall compared with prices in general. If that is not the case one would like to know why.
As regards the RPI minus x plus y formula, is there not an element of double counting? The RPI refers to prices in general. I had thought that x was deducted to allow generally for productivity improvements in the industry indicating that the real price will fall. That appeared to me to be the point of the RPI minus x formula. By adding again y is one not counting the inflation rate for a second time? Does not something appear to be sadly wrong

1131
with the formula? In due course will the noble Viscount tell us what the formula means?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will be grateful to know that the price control is designed to keep prices constant during the years that I have mentioned in order that opportunities will exist for competition which could bring them down. The price formula RPI is not a constant figure but a percentage figure. Therefore y is an important element and it is the pass-through costs.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the answer which the noble Viscount gave to my noble friend Lord Stoddart seems to follow very peculiar logic. He appeared to be saying that although nuclear energy could not make sufficient profit in private hands to justify the City putting its money into it, in public hands it would make sufficient profit. How will that come about? Will that not come about by double taxation; that is, by the use of taxpayers' money twice? Will it not come about through the non-fossil fuel levy plus higher prices?
The noble Viscount has not answered the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. He said that we must continue with Sizewell B. Why? Would it not lower the cost of electricity if Sizewell B were closed down now and the extra costs not incurred?
When he talks about the environment, has he ever heard of what will happen to nuclear waste? Is that not an environmental matter, or does he neglect that? In the section in which he talked about non-fossil fuel obligation, he did not say what will be the proportions between nuclear energy and renewables. There is a nice bland statement at the end of that page which states that the Government wish to ensure a full contribution from renewables. What will be the contribution, and what will be the proportions within that non-fossil fuel obligation between nuclear energy and renewables?
Again, the noble Viscount has not answered the question asked originally by the noble Baroness and also by my noble friend Lord Williams. Where does energy efficiency come into this Statement? Why is that not included in the licences? Why is energy efficiency not calculated in the whole of the calculation for the production of electricity?
This is a loose Statement trying to cover up the failure of the Government in their privatisation policy. Again, they are trying to draw a veil of respectability over the nuclear section of energy, whereas it has been clearly shown that serious energy efficiency is far more cost effective and environmentally friendly than nuclear energy can ever be.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this Statement is one of a progression of Statements bringing into being electricity privatisation. As I explained earlier, we are on course for that.
Trying to privatise the nuclear section ran into difficulties in the City because of the expected return which the City would wish to make on its money
1132
by selling the nuclear industry into private hands, because of the unknown, unquantifiable costs of decommissioning and also the higher rate of return required by City investors.
As has been made clear in the past, the Government fix a different rate of return for the public sector, whose appreciation and idea of the decommissioning costs may not be the same. They certainly have their ideas, which they have put into their accounts.
I cannot repeat yet again why we require Sizewell B and why we need to keep open the PWR option. I have said it on a number of occasions; namely, for diversity and security of supply, to make sure that the nuclear option remains and that the PWR station is built and Commissioned so that we can learn from that technology.
The non-fossil fuel obligation which I mentioned in the Statement, the eight gigawatts, refers basically to the nuclear part, and the Statement goes on to say that there will be another tranche of non-fossil fuel obligation announced to meet the renewables. However, the department requires another two months to assess the value of the 300 projects at which it is at present looking.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but only two hours ago the House agreed that 20 minutes should be the time allotted to a Statement after the two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have been answered. I am afraid that the noble Lord has fallen foul of that agreement today.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 5 [Food authorities and authorised officers]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of facilitating and developing the exercise of functions conferred on food authorities by this section, the relevant Minister or Secretary of State shall, after consultation with organisations representative of food authorities, lay before Parliament a report on the cost of any additional functions conferred in the first three years of operation of this Act, together with an estimate of the likely cost of functions to be exercised by such authorities over the succeeding three years")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 returns to an issue which we explored in Committee. We then sought and won an assurance from the Minister that the £30 million made available to local authorities in the forthcoming year is to be genuine additional money which will not be clawed back in other ways through the local government finance system. That was a very welcome assurance which we accepted.
This amendment concentrates on the likely developing cost to local authorities as food authorities in the future. Again, that subject was

1133
touched on in Committee. Evidence is accumulating within local government that the likely implementation costs of food safety will be substantial and are likely to develop and increase in future years.
A further concern which has been put to us is the basis of the distribution of the finance which is to be made available. One possible basis which the Government may put forward is that of population. However, it is argued that needs as between authorities will be dependent on a different set of variables in the case of this function. The numbers of restaurants, shopping centres, food producers and other sites requiring food and safety inspection will be the relevant determinants of the expenditure of a given authority. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out a little more of the Government's thinking as to the basis of the distribution of this money.
Amendment No. 66 deals with the provision for the public analyst of each local authority of the facility of laboratories, analysis and inspection. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations before the onset of the financial year as to the likely cost of adequate laboratory facilities or access to them.
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that sufficient funding will be made available. The public analyst provides the professional analytical function on which prosecutions and other forms of action will rest. The provision of such facilities is clearly crucial to the maintenance and expansion of the regulatory system if public confidence in the authority of the analysis undertaken is to be retained. This we all agree is so important. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government's thinking in that area. Perhaps she will feel able to give a commitment that if any deficiency in laboratory facilities is identified in the new structure set out in Clause 27, which states that each authority must appoint one or more persons as a public analyst on its behalf, then resources will be made available in future years as the regulatory system emanating from the Bill is developed. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we have been over similar ground in Committee. As I said then, the Government have already held consultations with organisations representing local authorities to discuss the likely cost of carrying out the new tasks which this Bill introduces.
I also announced that we intended to extend the provision for statutory consultation on the regulation-making powers which may have financial consequences for enforcement authorities. We have now tabled an amendment to that effect to which your Lordships agreed in our earlier debate on Clause 1. Before Ministers can make an order allocating or changing the functions of food authorities, they will have to consult organisations representing those likely to be affected.
We certainly expect local authority associations to comment on the need for, the shape and the financial
1134
implications of, any proposals to alter their duties and we would listen to their views. That perhaps takes in the point about laboratories. Moreover, the Government already hold extensive discussions with local authority associations about their spending, culminating in an annual meeting between local authority associations and Ministers. Food authorities will be free to make their normal representations in the context of the revenue support grant and to take the cost of the Bill into account.
For these reasons I still do not believe that it is appropriate to set down a formal requirement as noble Lords propose. I do not believe it adds anything useful to existing arrangements. Local authorities have the duty to enforce food law under Clause 6(3). There will be codes of practice to assist them in "prioritising" their work, but ultimately we must have a system which leaves it to them to allocate resources, both from central government and locally raised, in the right way for their area.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her reply. However, it did not go as far as we hoped. Incidentally, we also heard the word "prioritising" in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and we did not like it then, either.
Consultations are obviously important and we are very pleased that there has been an extended provision. It is, however, the government reaction to consultation which is important. The concern of the local authorities clearly is whether the money will be made available. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and, in the light of her remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 33, after ("any") insert ("suitably qualified").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, by Amendment No. 16, I sought to ensure that an authorised person should be an officer of the authority so that he could definitely be said to be under its jurisdiction and under its discipline. When replying to that my noble friend the Minister said that she wanted flexibility to be able to have expertise which is not in-house. My amendment today seeks to make the expertise an invariable part of any officer of the authority, whether he be from outside or inside. It refers to any "suitably qualified" person.
My noble friend may say that that is covered by the last three lines of subsection (6). However, that states:
"but if regulations made by the Ministers so provide, no person shall be so authorised unless he has such qualifications".
That gives the Minister the opportunity not to make regulations. It seems strange that we can have an authorised officer in this connection who is not suitably qualified; it seems to me that they must be qualified for the sorts of functions which they are required to perform under the terms of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will find it possible to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very happy to support this amendment. However worthy the

1135
motives, additional bureaucratic powers should be conferred very sparingly and then only upon a limited number of suitably qualified people.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. It is the fashion nowadays to appoint almost anybody to a position regardless of whether he is qualified. If one is to have an authority which is of some importance and of some real authority, such as we are considering, then surely it is essential that suitably qualified persons should be on it. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this amendment leaves me in a slight difficulty, in that I am aware that local authorities have great difficulty in obtaining what I describe as "suitably qualified" people. There are just not enough fully qualified environmental health inspectors and public health officers. Whether or not this could be covered by making the suitable qualification referred to at varying levels, I do not know. There may be a need on occasions to be able to delegate the authority to other people and for that reason I have slight doubts about the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it is useful to have the opportunity to return to this point so that I can explain the Government's view more fully and illustrate it further.
We all recognise, I believe, as shown by our brief discussion, that the task of inspecting a food business is one which calls for a high level of knowledge and expertise. That is why environmental health officers undergo three or four years' intensive study and training before they qualify. Many of those entering training are already graduates. Environmental health officers are therefore trained, responsible professionals. We all recognise that.
However, we also have to recognise that the food industry is becoming increasingly complex and specialised. This is particularly so when we are considering high technology and relatively new processes which enforcement officers will have to inspect. This was the sort of concern that led us to widen the definition of an authorised officer in this clause of the Bill to include people,
"whether or not an officer of the authority".
This will allow the authority to appoint in certain circumstances an expert as an authorised officer to inspect a complex process, without having to rely on the co-operation of the manufacturer when the EHO is in need of such specialist advice.
As my noble friend pointed out in presenting his amendment, the clause, as drafted, also allows the authority to appoint as an authorised officer someone who is less qualified than an environmental health officer or trading standards officer. There are a number of tasks currently undertaken quite satisfactorily by such less qualified people and we believe this should be allowed to continue. For example, there is the need to ascertain whether an improvement notice issued under this Bill has been complied with. It may well be that the improvement
1136
notice specifies simply that the owner of the food business should install a sink in a particular position in his kitchen. It is not really a task which requires a high degree of qualification for someone to visit and check that it has been done. Allowing authorities to utilise such staff for these tasks will enable EHOs to concentrate on the tasks which really do require their skills. Unfortunately, my noble friend's amendment would prevent this.
My noble friend's fears are groundless for two further reasons. If an authority appoints as an authorised officer someone who is not suitably qualified to carry out a particular enforcement function, we must remember that when acting as an authorised officer a person is acting in the name of that authority. It is, therefore, the authority that would carry the can for any mistakes.
There is a further safeguard in the unlikely event that authorities appoint unsuitable people as authorised officers. Clause 5(6) also provides Ministers with powers to make regulations setting out the qualifications required before anyone can be appointed as an authorised officer, either generally or for a specific class of duties.
In view of these reassurances I hope that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think my noble friend has the wrong point. By saying "suitably qualified" I was not seeking to ensure that they were qualified to the same degree as environmental health officers. There is no suggestion of that at all. The amendment says "suitably qualified".
My noble friend quoted an example of giving authority for a sink to be installed in some business, which obviously does not require a highly qualified person. However, it requires somebody who understands what a sink is; what the limitations are and whether it can go in a particular place, because it may be that the water was expected to run up from the drainpipe instead of down, which is the normal gravitational way in which water runs. There has to be someone who understands that kind of thing, and also someone who can read and write in order to post letters so they know into which box to put them.
"Suitably qualified" means exactly what it says. In this particular context it means that local authorities would have to make sure that persons were suitably qualified. The point of that is to make sure that local authorities do not have people who are complete morons and who do not command the respect of the companies with whom they may find themselves dealing. I believe that is a more sensible argument than my noble friend was acknowledging in her reply. However, on this issue it is not worth taking the House to a Division or anything grand like that. It is a matter which my noble friend might wish to take away in order to see whether at Third Reading she might have an amendment of this kind of her own. If not, I reserve the right to return to the charge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 7 [Rendering food injurious to health]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 22, after ("who") insert ("recklessly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with three subsequent amendments on the groupings list. Amendment No. 13 is a matter separate from the subsequent three amendments, so I shall speak to it quite separately. This is the second attempt to make Clause 7 rather less of a blunderbuss which not only peppers the rogue —and nobody could possibly object to that —but may also inadvertently cause considerable discomfort to food manufacturers who act in good faith and with all reasonable care and diligence.
I give an example to illustrate the necessity for the insertion of the word "recklessly" or something very like it. Let us consider the case of two small confectionery manufacturers neither of which employs more than 10 people, maybe lower than five. Therefore, they are clearly not in a position to employ food analysts or research chemists. In the course of a particular year the world is suddenly faced with a worldwide sugar blight which afflicts both sugar cane and suger beet. In consequence the price of refined sugar skyrockets. What is of even more importance to the manufacturer is that sugar becomes almost impossible to obtain, as do suitable sugar substitutes —not all sugar substitutes would be suitable for their purpose.
The first confectioner (let us call him the good confectioner) learns, luckily, that a very highly regarded and internationally known public company such as ICI, Unilever or Beecham, has just developed a totally new sugar substitute. He immediately places an order with the firm, albeit at a considerable price, in order to keep his business in existence, his employees employed and his customers happy.
In contrast, the second manufacturer is visited by a salesman who says: "Why bother paying through the nose for the new sweetener produced by ICI?" or whoever it may be. "I can get you something which is perfectly adequate for less than a third of the price. It has just been developed in a small laboratory outside Bucharest by one of the late President Ceausescu's many sons-in-law. As it so happens, I have a few cartons in the back of the van. I can let you have them at a pretty good discount, provided it is cash up front and no questions asked".
The second manufacturer finds the offer impossible to resist. Unfortunately, a few weeks later it transpires that 10 per cent. of the customers who bought products from the first confectioner develop an unpleasant rash, not a seriously disabling one, but one that is unpleasant for a few days or weeks. What is far worse is that perhaps one in three of those who bought cakes or sweets made with what might be called the Ceausescu sweetener have developed a really serious malady causing permanent disablement in some cases.
As the clause stands, it would appear that both confectioners would be caught. I believe that many people would feel that to be wrong. After all, the first manufacturer acted in good faith by going to the
1138
trouble of obtaining his ingredients from a reputable company and he has therefore taken all reasonable care. He cannot be expected to know that the ingredients would turn out to be harmful if a major company with all its resources had been unable to ascertain that fact in the first place. On the other hand, the second manufacturer has demonstrably behaved with extreme recklessness. He is clearly a reckless man who deserves prosecution, unlike the other manufacturer. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has clearly given further thought to this matter following the Committee stage debate. However, I still cannot accept his suggestions. Before I explain why perhaps I may make a general point. I was expecting to deal with all these amendments together as they are grouped. My general point concerns all the amendments, but I shall be speaking simply to Amendment No. 13.
Lying behind these amendments and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottisi one, I detect the feeling that the main offence provisions of the Bill are too tough. At the same time, if your Lordships will look down the Marshalled List to Clause 8 and Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 and think back to our earlier deliberations, you will see that we are also under pressure to go further. I believe this shows that we have the balance just about right.
We took these points away for consideration. Our conclusion is that some adjustments can usefully be made to the enforcement powers in Clauses 11 and 12. Your Lordships will see that government amendments are tabled to these clauses. However, we feel that Clause 7 is right as it stands.
Amendment No. 13 would mean that a person commits no offence by rendering food injurious to health unless he does so recklessly, though unlike the similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at Committee stage, this amendment might catch someone who acts negligently. It is quite unacceptable. It would dilute the offence of rendering food injurious to health. Since this offence involves a positive act, it is right that it should be absolute, but with resort to the due diligence defence for a manufacturer whose process produces injurious food despite his taking all reasonable precautions and exercising all due diligence.
If a manufacturer can prove this to the satisfaction of a court it is right that he should be acquitted. However, it is also right that, regardless of whether an offence is shown to have been committed, we should have powers to prevent the defective food from being sold for human consumption. The Bill provides such powers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. Like most people, I have always been totally opposed to the concept of an absolute offence. I feel as strongly as anyone in this House that the real rogue manufacturer should be prosecuted and no question of it. It is the borderline cases that worry me. However, I am somewhat heartened by the Minister's explanation of the possibility of a due diligence defence. That is slighly reassuring. I believe

1139
that I have done all I can concerning this amendment. If in future reputable and conscientious manufacturers find themselves facing prosecution for something over which they have little or no control they cannot say that they have not been warned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("a person") and insert ("most persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 15 which is consequential and to Amendment No. 18 which is not consequential but is a possible alternative to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. I do not think that this trio of amendments needs much explanation. There is hardly a foodstuff in the world which does not have an adverse effect on somebody somewhere. It may be chocolate, coffee, cow's milk, cheese, wheatflour, nuts, strawberries and so on, to say nothing of common additives, which are perhaps regrettably too common, such as monosodium glutamate. Many noble Lords made much the same point when supporting me in Committee.
These amendments are designed to ensure that a manufacturer does not risk prosecution merely because ingredients which are generally considered to be safe, and which are in actual fact safe for the great majority of people, happen to cause adverse reaction in a small proportion of the population. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord. As we are discussing these amendments together, presumably now is the moment to speak to Amendment No. 18. When I first saw the amendment I could not understand the exact reason for it. I thought it was onerous. But now that I have looked thoroughly into the matter I find that it is exactly the reverse. I thought that 5 per cent. of the population being allergic to a food would be a fairly common occurrence. However, research by the European Commission Scientific Committee for Food showed that 15 per cent. of people are sensitive to something. That 15 per cent. includes those sensitive to housedust and pollens. Only 1·5 per cent. are sensitive to some form of foodstuff and only 0·15 per cent. to food additives. The percentage of people allergic to a food, at 1·5 per cent. of the population, is very small.
A food intolerance data bank is being built up. It is important to appreciate that a manufacturer should not be held liable for an intolerance of food. The word "intolerance" is much wider than "allergy". It could cover someone who has a liverish feeling arising from an intolerance to certain foods. Some people are genuinely intolerant of food as opposed to being allergic to it, which gives different symptoms. The Leatherhead Food Research Association which manages the food intolerance data bank provides a service for state registered dieticians and hospital dieticians. It keeps a list of foods free from one or more ingredients. If someone cannot
1140
tolerate flour he can be supplied with a list of foods which exclude wheat and flour. If a milk product is to be avoided, a similar list would be provided.
It is important to appreciate that, although people have individual physiological conditions which might cause them to be upset by certain foods, it would be very unfair to blame the manufacturer of foods which did not affect the vast majority of people and in which the ingredients were good and wholesome but which had an unfortunate effect on an individual. For that reason I support Amendment No. 18 in principle, although whether or not the terminology is correct I would not be able to judge.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 suggest that injury to health should be defined by reference to most people. This is undesirable. I have vibes whenever I hear the words "most people". The definition we have provided merely assists in the interpretation of a phrase that occurs far more widely than in the present Act. It does not expand on the present interpretation which existing case law indicates to be that,
"food is injurious to health if it affects a substantial portion of the population".
This offers greater protection than would the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. However, it does not mean that every incident where an individual with an odd intolerance is affected by food could be caught. For instance, very young children might risk injury to health from a food. At present a court would be unlikely to hesitate in deciding that they were a significant proportion of the population. However, most people would perhaps be unaffected.
This leads me to the noble Lord's final amendment, Amendment No. 18, which seeks to provide that food is not injurious if its sole risk to health is an allergic reaction,
"to which less than five per cent. of the population are known to be prone".
The implication of existing case law is that foods leading to rare allergies and intolerances are unlikely to be injurious. However, I do not see why we should make the amendment which my noble friend Lord Monson proposes and which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has supported and hence deprive ourselves of the chance to deal with a food that causes a serious or even fatal allergic reaction in 4–9 per cent. of the population. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her expert support. I was interested to hear from her that only 1·5 per cent. of the population is allergic to one or other foodstuff. I can only suppose that my family, friends and acquaintances are somewhat atypical because I reckon that at least 10 per cent. of them seem to be allergic in some degree to one food or another. But there it is.
I am reassured by what the noble Baroness said in reply to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. Case law in that respect seems to answer my worries. However, I

1141
cannot agree with her on Amendment No. 18. She said that case law proves that foods which cause allergies are unlikely to be injurious to health. That is not quite so. I know someone who is so allergic to nuts that if one teaspoon of ground almonds were put into a cake, after one bite he would immediately become extremely ill. The noble Baroness has not answered the point fully. The case I have just cited is by no means unique.
I do not intend to press the amendment at the moment. I ask the Government to look again at the points covered by Amendment No. 18. Unlikely though it may be, there are some perfectly ordinary everyday foodstuffs to which some people are so allergic that their reaction to eating them is strong enough to hospitalise them. That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about a rash or anything as relatively innocuous as that. In the hope that the Government will look at the matter before Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone: moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("Part") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 29, 36, 37 and 40. In Committee I questioned strongly whether subsection (3) of Clause 7 was too broadly written in that it might catch people on a wide scale. We have just been talking about this in relation to other amendments. I shall not pursue that further but instead concentrate on explaining the purpose of Amendment No. 16. The other amendments I referred to are consequential upon it.
The amendment seeks to narrow the definition of "injury" just to Clause 7 so that it does not apply to the whole of Part. II. That is because, as I shall explain more fully in relation to Amendment No. 17, there are some clauses within that part of the Bill where this wide definition could be seriously misinterpreted. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Minister that the safest way to use the term "injury", if it has to be used, is to narrow its usage down to just this clause.
In replying to one of my previous amendments my noble friend said that the definition of "injury" is used more frequently now in legislation. However, it is not frequently used in this Bill. I say that because I have only had to put forward three consequential amendments which seek to strike the word out of Part II. Therefore the term is not as widely used as may be thought. Perhaps, therefore, it would be wise to narrow its usage down to this clause alone. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone reiterate the concerns he raised in Committee. I hope that he is now less concerned about the definition of "injury" as contained in Clause 7. As I have already said in response to my noble friend's amendment to Clause 7, the definition is a reasonable one and, I maintain, consistent with the common usage of the term. Moreover, it would not
1142
cover any impairment due to food intolerance or to the after-effects of alcohol.
I cannot accept my noble friend's first amendment. The term "injury" in turn defines the crucial expressions "food safety requirements" and "the health risk condition". Consequently, it influences the major offence provisions in Clauses 7 and 8, the seizure powers in Clause 9, the enforcement powers in Clauses 11 to 13 and the regulation-making powers in Clauses 16 and 26. I cannot, therefore, agree that the word should be defined only in respect of Clause 7.
As for the remainder of his amendments, my noble friend will also note that we have tabled a number of amendments of our own to the enforcement powers in Clauses 11 and 12 which address his concern that as originally drafted these clauses were rather inflexible.
I cannot accept his specific proposals to amend Clauses 11 to 13. It still appears to me that the loss of the term "injury" leads to a lack of precision and could therefore weaken the clauses. The term "injury" is wide enough to cover the circumstances where enforcement action is needed but, as I have already explained, not as wide as my noble friend may have feared.
I hope therefore in the light of that rather involved explanation that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full explanation. At this stage I am certainly satisfied with that response in relation to these amendments. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 39, after ("temporary") insert ("and attributable to food,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to emphasise the fact that subsection (3) is referring to health in relation to food. My concern and that of the Food and Drink Confederation which advises me is with the terms of Clause 11(2). I am not quite sure whether my noble friend's amendments will adequately clarify the situation.
If noble Lords will look at Clause 11(2) it can be seen that it deals with the "health risk condition" in relation to the "construction of any premises" and other such purposes. In this connection the fear is that "injury" could well be taken to encompass the health and safety of employees at work; for example, people constructing premises who may fall off ladders. Therefore it would seem reasonable to ensure, especially as this is the purpose of this part of the Bill, that we are really only talking about injury in relation to food. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern that it is not specified in Clauses 11 to 13 that the term "injury to health" applies only in respect of injury caused by food. It would indeed be quite inappropriate for food

1143
authorities to use the Food Safety Bill as a draconian extension of health and safety legislation.
However, I am happy to be able to reassure your Lordships that the term does not have the breadth of meaning which my noble friend fears. The way the term is defined in Clause 7 is such as to make it clear that it refers to food. Moreover, the scope of the Bill means that the term is confined to food.
I must therefore ask my noble friend whether he will consider withdrawing the amendment. I should add, however, that I agree wholeheartedly with its purpose but I am confident that the Bill already meets the concerns he has expressed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her reply. I shall study carefully what she said. Moreover, I shall read the Bill again, for the umpteenth time, before deciding whether to take further action. I am very pleased that my noble friend understands what I seek to achieve. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Selling food not complying with food safety requirements]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is put forward in the shape of a general safety requirement. I argued the case for such a requirement at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings. I should say that at this stage that while moving Amendment No. 19 I am speaking also to Amendment No. 20, the former being a paving amendment by way of a word change.
I do not know whether it was my argument or the way in which my amendment was worded at a previous stage —I add that the one I now propose is produced in roughly the same shape —which led the noble Baroness to say that she found the reasons to have such a safety requirement included in the Bill difficult to follow. I do not think it was due to my argument, but I may be wrong. I should point out that the wording is taken directly from Section 10(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. It is also similar to that which introduces such a duty in the draft product safety directive, which, as your Lordships know, extends to food.
The main objective of such a safety requirement is to block up holes, if I may put it that way. It is a catch-all clause which would not only cover any loopholes which may currently exist in the Bill but would also cover future eventualities. Such a requirement is particularly important at present as regards future eventualities because technology in food changes so fast.
In Committee the noble Baroness also said that she found the idea of a new safety requirement to be unnecessary. I think that she said that the existing clauses, Clauses 8, 15 and 16, were a more targeted way of dealing with such problems. The arguments
1144
which I brought into play at that stage related to the example of microwave cooking. Having read the report of the proceedings on the Bill at Committee stage I am not absolutely clear how the clauses that the noble Baroness mentioned would deal with the problem. In order to keep the subject alive and not bore your Lordships by going over the same ground again, perhaps I may put another example to the noble Baroness and perhaps she can tell me how the Bill deals with it.
Let us consider the troublesome problem of red kidney beans. It may not generally be known, although it is probably known to all Members of your Lordships' House who cook, that severe stomach upsets can be caused by consuming red kidney beans unless they are cooked for at least 10 minutes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, much longer.
6 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: Much longer than 10 minutes, as the noble Baroness says, in order to destroy the natural toxins which are contained in the beans. I bow to her experience in cooking. I believe that commendably the Government have written to the bean trade —if one may describe it as such —asking those involved to label their products with the requisite cooking instructions. However, there is no legal requirement —no legislative inducement —for those who sell red kidney beans to conform to the Government's request.
I dare say that the noble Baroness will suggest that the labelling regulations cover the point, but surely these requirements do not cover the sale of loose red kidney beans. It is even arguable whether they cover pre-packaged beans. If someone were to become ill from eating beans sold loose from a shop when no warning is displayed, it is unclear whether an offence has been committed. I suppose that outside your Lordships' House it is unreasonable to expect purchasers of raw kidney beans to know that they need this special treatment. I would welcome comments from the noble Baroness on that. It is an area in which there could be problems which might extend to other foods.
One accepts the Minister's final point that the provision which was added during the previous stage of the Bill, Clause 16(1)(e), gives the Government powers to impose labelling requirements. However, surely, rather than dealing with loopholes as they emerge, a higher degree of protection would lead to consumer confidence. This has been mentioned at several stages of the Bill and it would be achieved through a tighter and more watertight framework by adding this subsection. That is what the amendment tries to achieve.
As the Bill is intended to give a comprehensive legislative framework for food safety, it seems strange that the Government do not wish to raise the standards of consumer protection to those in other areas. It is my contention that your Lordships should carefully consider the amendment which I put before the House today because it would benefit consumers, manufacturers, retailers and the Government alike.

1145
We should avoid a good many problems by tightening the band of legislation around this area. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we seem to have got into a fog with this amendment. I did not understand the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in the first round and he did not understand what I said. Let us try to put this matter to bed.
With the amendment we turn to the other side of the coin and I cannot accept it. As I said during the discussion of Clause 7, I think that we have got the balance about right and should be wary of amending key provisions. In any event, as it happens, I believe that the addition is unworkable and unnecessary. Perhaps I may talk about the famous kidney beans for a minute. If they are pre-packed, as they might well be, the labelling regulations cover them. If they are sold loose, the Food Advisory Committee is looking into labelling requirements for non-pre-packed food. We shall draw kidney beans to their attention. As a cook, I merely say that if people do not boil them for a long time they might find that their teeth suffer because the beans are extremely hard.
I do not think that it is possible to say that food fails to comply with the food safety requirements if it is not reasonably safe. It is extremely difficult to determine whether or not food is safe, even taking account of those factors listed in the proposed amendment. Food which is safe to eat at a particular time may be harmful if eaten later because it has deteriorated. Food which does no damage to one person's health may be dangerous for another.
Clause 8 already prohibits the sale of unsafe food which must be taken to include all the factors which have a direct effect on the safety of the final food, including those factors set out in the amendment. I believe that these provisions are sufficiently comprehensive and I hope that the noble Viscount has understood my explanation and will withdraw his amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness and I understand each other much better, perhaps because it is earlier in the evening than on the previous occasion. I understand what she has said and it is true that the Bill goes a good way towards allaying many people's fears about the relationship between government and food safety in times of changing needs. The rejection of the amendment is still puzzling to many of us who criticise the absence of an absolute safety requirement. This would put an obligation on those who supply food to the public to undertake to provide food which is safe in the way indicated in my amendment.
However it is not my intention to press the amendment. I do not think it is foggy; we are not in a fog or mist. I am confident that time will show that one may need to tighten the legislation in future. It would be arrogant of me to suggest at this stage, taking into account what the noble Baroness has said, that the Government resisted a move towards further protecting the consumer. I believe that a
1146
careful watch will be kept in the future. After what the noble Baroness has said, we may well have to come back to the argument, but I am glad that we have clarified some of the points at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Inspection and seizure of suspected food]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("forthwith") in line 10 and insert (", as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 21 days, determine whether or not he is satisfied that the food complies with food safety requirements and—
(a) if he is so satisfied, shall")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 at an earlier stage and I think that they are clear. The essence of Amendment No. 21 is that there should be no unreasonable delay in providing an answer as to whether or not the food is fit. Therefore I have now brought back this amendment in a modified form. I believe it is self-explanatory. I hope that the Government will view it favourably. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling these amendments. The argument may have been clear at an earlier stage but the amendment was not. A period of 21 days should be long enough to allow a local authority to carry out the necessary tests. I believe that these amendments strike the right balance between the needs of the enforcement authority and the owner of the food. I am happy to accept the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 11, after ("satisfied,") insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 20, leave out from ("witnesses") to end of line 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. In the first instance the Food and Drink Federation advised me that it was concerned that a Justice of the Peace should not deal with a prosecution where he had been involved in the initial condemnation of the food. At that time my noble friend Lady Hooper said:
"A justice who has become prejudiced in the course of hearing the application for the condemnation of food would in practice always withdraw from any subsequent proceeding in relation to the food". —[Official Report, 15/1/90; col. 461.]
I confirmed that to be so from my knowledge of magistrates in my county.
I also draw attention to the fact that Clause 9(9) specifically leaves out subsection (5)(b) in relation to Scotland. That might be understandable in the first instance because the Scots do not have JPs. However, it does not replace that provision with an amended equivalent. Therefore, the provision is clearly not considered necessary for Scotland at all.
As I said in Committee, I believe the best thing to do is to leave out subsection (5)(b) altogether. That is what I am now proposing. I believe that the subsection is unnecessary because the essential feature of whether a JP does two jobs or one is a matter for the local Bench. They are the best people to decide that matter, depending on the circumstances involved. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I cannot sort out this matter as I have not been into the detail. However, we have JPs in Scotland although their role is somewhat different. I expect that my noble friend has studied that matter and doubtless the Minister has sorted it out.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recall a previous discussion on a similar amendment at the previous stage of the Bill. I suggest that the paragraph which my noble friend now wishes to remove does not tell the Bench what to do but merely makes it clear that two options are open to it. I believe it would be a retrograde step to remove a paragraph which clarifies the position of magistrates. It seems to me that such a paragraph can only be beneficial to them. On that basis again I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend on this occasion too.
On the Scottish point which my noble friend raised, as I understand it Clause 9(9)(a) simply elaborates on the reference to a Justice of the Peace to include a reference to a sheriff and a magistrate. I can confirm that sheriffs, like judges, are legally qualified. That is not the case with JPs. Therefore they have a different role. That accounts for the difference in the application to Scotland. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, this is certainly not a matter to make a great fuss about. However, I believe my noble friend has been advised rather stubbornly by people who have included an extra and unnecessary subsection, subsection (5)(b), and who are jolly well going to hold onto it through thick and thin, even if it is not necessary. This is very much a matter of back seat driving on behalf of the magistracy which is perfectly capable of deciding whether a magistrate should sit on a Bench when he has been involved in some previous exercise of his duties. Therefore I think the subsection is totally unnecessary and has been insisted upon through the stubbornness of some people who are involved in the matter. I hope the Government may feel that they are overlegislating, as is so often the case these days. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 35, after ("value") insert ("and other costs, claims, damages and expenses incurred or suffered by the owner directly").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved an amendment in Committee which was rather wider
1148
than this one in that I was trying to recover not only costs for immediate and direct losses but also for those involved in loss of good will and good name. That may be rather difficult to value. The Bill as it stands, however, does not cover all the losses that manufacturers could be faced with in the wrongful seizure of goods. Clause 9, as it is set out, only covers depreciation in value.
However, I know of a case where a firm was instructed that it must retain all its stock of mayonnaise and not put it on the market at all because it had to be checked for various organisms. As a result 31,144 cases of that product had to be put on hold. Although a meeting was held with the environmental health officer and the company presented what it considered to be sufficient data to prove that the product was all right, it was still asked to continue to hold the product. The company carried out its own microbiological tests to confirm the product was all right but they were not acceptable. However, I support the view that an independent public analyst should carry out these tests, so I do not think, the company had any grounds for complaint there. Nevertheless, 13 days after the initial contact the company was told that the tests had been completed with satisfactory results and that the product could therefore be released.
The company had held all its stocks of that product, but as its customers could not do without it the company had to employ additional staff, at overtime rates, to make up replacement goods in order to supply the customers. When the goods were eventually cleared there was no loss in their value because they were still worth the same amount on the shelf, and as they were eventually supplied no compensation could be claimed under the terms of the present wording of the legislation. However, the cost to the firm in terms of supplying all the replacement products at a certain speed with overtime rates payable was estimated to be about £5,000. My amendment seeks to cover direct losses incurred by someone whose goods are subsequently found to be not faulty in any way and quite fit for sale. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I supported my noble friend at Committee stage when she moved a similar amendment and I do so again this evening. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington to pay very careful attention to what my noble friend Lady Gardner has said when we consider Clause 13.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall make sure that my noble friend Lady Trumpington is aware of the point made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner said in moving the amendment —although not in so many words—Section 9(4) of the Food Act 1984 already requires enforcement authorities to compensate the owner of the food for any depreciation in its value resulting from its seizure, if a magistrate refuses to condemn it. That requirement will continue under the Bill. I reiterate that our aim is to maintain the proper balance between effective enforcement of

1149
public health measures and the legitimate interests of food businesses. We believe that this provision achieves that balance.
It is important to realise that, if we accept the amendment, we should be widening the provision and requiring local authorities to cover the costs of other expenses, such as legal fees and loss of custom. That would push up the compensation bill dramatically. As I said in Committee when my noble friend moved a similar amendment on the same subject, one of the main aims of the Bill is to ensure the effective enforcement of food safety law, for the better protection of public health. If we were to accept the amendment, every time an enforcement officer came across food which he suspected might be unfit he would have to balance two unpleasant possibilities in his mind. If he did not detain or seize the food he might be putting public health at risk; if he did detain or seize it he might be letting his authority in for a hefty compensation bill. That would surely lead to less effective decision-making and less effective protection of public health.
As I recollect, a number of noble Lords, although supporting my noble friend's previous amendments, also said that they had no wish to weaken the enforcement of the Bill. I fear that the amendment would weaken it.
In a case such as that of the mayonnaise referred to by my noble friend, a food business already has recourse to a local government Commissioner and can sue the local authority if it feels that the local authority has abused its powers in some way. Therefore food businesses already have the opportunity to pursue a claim for special compensation if they feel that they have a good case.
I trust that on the basis of that reply my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her explanation, which I shall read with care. However, it seems inconsistent that if the case that I mentioned had involved a perishable product which had depreciated in value it would have been possible to make a claim even if the amount of money was the same, yet because a replacement had to be provided it was not possible to do so. That was the case that I made.
I hope that the Minister will read in Hansard what we have both said on that point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Improvement notices]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("within") in line 11 and insert—

("(a) state the officer's grounds for believing that the proprietor is failing to comply with the regulations;

(b) specify the matters which consitute the proprietor's failure so to comply;

(c) specify the measures which, in the officer's opinion, the proprietor must take in order to secure compliance; and

(d) require the proprietor to take those measures, or measures which are at least equivalent to them").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment arises from an amendment which I put down at Committee stage and which I understood the Government accepted in principle. It concerns the point that there are many different ways of doing something. Therefore, the authorised officer should specify the steps which a proprietor must take but should not be so restrictive as to define those steps to the last detail since the matter could be dealt with by alternative methods. The matter should be open to formal agreement. I believe that there is no need to go into further detail. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for tabling a revised version of the amendment which she moved in Committee. I am satisfied that the amendment will achieve our aim of ensuring that defective food premises are brought up to standard while at the same time ensuring that undue burdens are not placed on food businesses. I am therefore happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 8, line 12, at end insert —
("(1A) Within the period referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section, an improvement notice may be revoked or amended by any authorised officer of the enforcement authority under whose authority it was issued. The proprietor on whom the improvement notice was served shall be notified in writing"):
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 26 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 27, which is consequential. The object of the amendment is to ameliorate the drafting of Clause 10 which, as it stands, requires that an improvement notice once issued must be complied with in total subject only to an appeal to a magistrates' court, which is provided for in Clause 37.
It has been suggested to us that circumstances may arise in which the issuing officer or another authorised officer of the same enforcement authority wishes either to amend or revoke the notice. For example, an environmental health officer may have issued an improvement notice requiring new steps to be taken to prevent infestation by birds only to discover that adequate steps have been taken but not drawn to his attention. In such a case the enforcement officer might wish to withdraw the notice. Alternatively, an improvement notice could be issued requiring an improvement to be carried out in a certain way. It might then be drawn to the attention of the environmental health officer that the same result could be achieved by other and perhaps better means. In such circumstances he would probably wish to amend the notice. It is to cover such circumstances that the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the purpose behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. However I believe it to be unnecessary.
I accept that following the issue of an improvement notice there may be discussions with

1151
the owner of a food business which will result in the enforcement officer wishing to change the notice. For example, if the owner has tried to find a builder to carry out work but is unable to locate one who can do it within the period specified in the improvement notice, he night approach the enforcement officer to lengthen the period. In those circumstances the enforcement officer could issue a new notice and withdraw the old one. Those powers do not need to be explicit in the Bill.
We have just discussed an amendment to Clause 10 brought forward by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. That will make the improvement notice system much easier for food businesses. I might add that it would also be possible for the owner of a food business to appeal against an improvement notice if he so wished. We are bringing forward an amendment to Clause 37 of the Bill later today which will allow the court which hears the appeal to alter the terms of the notice. That is another route by which an improvement notice can be changed on the application of the person on whom it was served.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was aware that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, improved the climate somewhat. I am grateful for it. In those circumstances and in the light of what the Minister said about improvement notices in general, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Prohibition orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("(in this Act referred to as a "prohibition order")").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No. 28 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 33 and 115. The main amendment here is Amendment No. 30 and the others are all consequential upon it.
The amendment reflects the desire expressed in Committee by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that the imposition of a prohibition order on the proprietor of a food business should be something which is at the court's discretion rather than required of the court. The Government agree with that view. As I said in Committee, it is not our intention to prohibit an entire company from carrying on a food business because of an offence committed in the single outlet which may not be typical of the company as a whole. Our aim, as I said then, is to catch the real offender. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that it is necessary in some circumstances to give the court the power to prevent someone from being involved in the management of any food business. We have
1152
therefore taken the opportunity to revise the clause in general and I should like to explain to the House what we have done.
I should like, first, to emphasise that before a court can begin to consider whether a prohibition order may be imposed on the proprietor of a food business he must first be convicted of an offence under hygiene regulations. We originally thought that we would cover within the scope of this clause cases where a proprietor was convicted under regulations on processing or treatment of food. However, we no longer believe that this is necessary and we consider that all the circumstances in which we would like courts to have the power to consider a prohibition relate to offences against hygiene regulations.
I am sure that noble Lords are aware that the scope of the hygiene regulations is very wide. Your Lordships will notice that we have altered the requirement in the Bill that the state or condition of the premises or equipment must pose a risk of injury to health before the court could impose a prohibition order on a proprietor. We think that that precondition was unnecessarily restrictive on the court.
To ensure that the powers are used properly, we have also come to the conclusion, following comments made during our deliberations at an earlier stage and elsewhere, that a court considering the imposition of a prohibition order on the proprietor of a food business should be required to take account of the wider circumstances of the case. The provision will, we believe, allow the court to take account of the seriousness or repeated nature of the offence which has been committed. It will also allow the court to consider whether the order is being imposed on the real or main offender. Your Lordships will see that in a little while we shall move another amendment which allows a court to place a prohibition order on the manager rather than the proprietor of a food business. There may be some cases where both are convicted under hygiene regulations. However, it may only be appropriate to impose a prohibition on one of the parties concerned because of the nature of the offence. The amendment that we are now discussing allows a court to do that.
Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the additional discretion which the amendment gives to a court to prohibit the person concerned from the management of any food business or from a particular type or description of food business. For example, a court might consider that a person's behaviour led it to disqualify him from running a restaurant. However, because of the difference in the risks involved, he might still be able to run a greengrocer's shop. The amendment allows the court the discretion to adjust the scope of the prohibition order as it thinks fit. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have brought forward the amendment because this is an extremely complex matter which it is difficult to get right. As I said in Committee, I have seen cases where thoroughly disreputable and unreliable people were managing or running food businesses. When they

1153
were closed down by the local authority health committee, they turned round and opened up another one pretty well next door. At that stage nothing could be done about it.
The flexibility now built into the clause will still give the powers to the court to ensure that an unscrupulous person cannot flout the law, yet it will not have the effect about which the Food and Drink Federation was so concerned. If the previous wording had been retained, even the largest manufacturer of foodstuffs in the country could have been closed down because of the actions of perhaps a tiny, newly taken over branch over which it had not yet had an opportunity to exercise full control. I am therefore most grateful to the Government for considering the arguments brought forward in Committee and for bringing forward such satisfactory amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert —
("(4) If —

(a) the proprietor of a food business is convicted of an offence under any regulations to which this section applies by virtue of section 10(3)(b) above; and

(b) the court thinks it proper to do so in all the circumstances of the case,

the court may, by an order, impose a prohibition on the proprietor participating in the management of any food business, or any food business of a class or description specified in the order.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert —
("( ) Where the prohibition concerns the wholly owned subsidiary of a company, it shall not normally be extended to other parts of that company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to ensure that, in the event of a recently acquired subsidiary of a company being deserving of a prohibition order, the whole company will not automatically be shut down. Part of the problem is perhaps due to the interpretation of the word "proprietor" and its definition later in the Bill. I suspect that Amendment No. 35 takes care of the problem. I should be grateful if my noble friend would reassure me that a large company would not be shut down purely because one of its subsidiaries committed an offence and required a prohibition order. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, I said in Committee that we would review Clause 11 carefully to ensure that a court could not prohibit an entire company from carrying on a food business because of an offence committed in a single outlet which may not be typical of the company as a whole. I can reassure my noble friend that we have done so and that the provisions of Amendment No. 30 will meet his concern. I shall not repeat my introduction of the amendment here but assume that it will reassure my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend's words reassure me and I thank her for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("a prohibition order") and insert ("an order under subsection (1) or (4) above (in this Act referred to as a "prohibition order")").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 7, at beginning insert ("in the case of an order under subsection (1) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert—
("(6) A prohibition order shall cease to have effect—

(a) in the case of an order under subsection (1) above, on the issue by the enforcement authority of a certificate to the effect that they are satisfied that the proprietor has taken sufficient measures to secure that the health risk condition is no longer fulfilled with respect to the business;

(b) in the case of an order under subsection (4) above, on the giving by the court of a direction to that effect.

(7) The enforcement authority shall issue a certificate under paragraph (a) of subsection (6) above within three days of their being satisfied as mentioned in that paragraph; and on application by the proprietor for such a certificate, the authority shall—

(a) determine, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 14 days, whether or not they are so satisfied; and

(b) if they determine that they are not so satisfied, give notice to the proprietor of the reasons for that determination.

(8) The court shall give a direction under subsection (6)(b) above if, on an application by the proprietor, the court thinks it proper to do so having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular the conduct for the proprietor since the making of the order; but no such application shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes who made the point in Committee that the owner of a food business should have the right to apply for the lifting of a prohibition order. Where a prohibition order has been placed on a food business or on the proprietor of the business under Clause 11 of the Bill or when an emergency prohibition order has been placed on a business under Clause 12, there will be deficiencies which need to be put right. The amendments allow the owner of the business, when he considers that he has put those deficiencies right, to apply for the order to be lifted. In the case of an order placed on his premises, he would apply to the enforcement authority. Where a prohibition order had been placed on himself as the proprietor he would apply to the court.
If an enforcement authority is considering whether a prohibition order on a food business can be lifted, it must be satisfied that that business no longer poses a risk to health. The amendment also provides that, if the enforcement authority is not satisfied, it should let the owner of the food business know of the reasons for that decision. I hope that noble Lords

1155
will agree that that is a sensible change. It will lead to greater clarity for all concerned. The owner of the food business will be absolutely clear as to what else he must do to satisfy the enforcement authority that his business is no longer a risk to health. Equally, the enforcement authority will be confident that the owner of the business knows what he must achieve and will begin to take the necessary steps. On that basis I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
("(9) Subsection (4) above shall apply in relation to a manager of a food business as it applies in relation to the proprietor of such a business; and any reference in subsection (5) or (8) above to the proprietor of the business, or to the proprietor, shall be construed accordingly.
(10) In subsection (9) above "manager", in relation to a food business, means any person who is entrusted by the proprietor with the day to day running of the business, or any part of the business.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is closely linked to Amendment No. 34, which allows the court discretion as to whether or not to disqualify the proprietor of the business. We had in mind, in particular, the situation where the conviction of the proprietor of a large chain of food premises, because of the unhygienic conditions in one branch, should not necessarily lead to the prohibition of the proprietor. Rather, it could well be the manager of the branch in question, who might also have been convicted of the offence, who should be barred from running a food business or managing one for a period of time.
This amendment allows a court to disqualify the manager of a food business or part of a business in exactly the same way as it may disqualify the proprietor. The amendment defines "manager" as the person entrusted by the proprietor with the day-to-day running of the business or a part of the business
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that there are circumstances where it would be indefensible to treat the manager of a single branch or outlet of a major chain differently from the proprietor of a small food business. We recognise that the onus is on the proprietor of the business to ensure that hygienic conditions and practices exist in all the branches of that business. However, because people working in the catering trade in particular tend to move rapidly between jobs within that trade, we think it is necessary to have the power to disqualify a manager so that, where appropriate, he may not move on and immediately begin work with another company where he could continue his bad practices. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a worthwhile amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the amendment. I accept the principle inherent in it and the good sense which lies behind it. I intervene to express the hope that the granting of a facility to proceed against managers, whilst fully justified in the circumstances which the noble
1156
Baroness has outlined, will not result in any weakening of the responsibility of proprietors to ensure that hygiene regulations are observed throughout the whole of their business. I hope that in particular branches hygiene training is fully implemented.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that it is not our intention that proprietors should have less responsibility in those circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Emergency prohibition notices and orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("business") to end of line 25 and insert—
("8A) The enforcement authority shall issue a certificate under subsection (8) above within three days of their being satisfied as mentioned in that subsection; and on an application by the proprietor for such a certificate, the authority shall —

(a) determine, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 14 days, whether or not they are so satisfied; and

(b) if they determine that they are not so satisfied, give notice to the proprietor of the reasons for that determination.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 39, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 116. The deletion of the subsection reinserts a similar category of bank holidays under Clause 53 —I have amendments down in respect of Clause 53.
As regards Amendment No. 116 perhaps there should be specific reference to the fact that any period that finishes on a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in a relevant part of Great Britain should be treated as finishing on the next day thereafter, which is not such a bank holiday. Your Lordships will be aware that bank holidays vary in different parts of the United Kingdom. It may be unfair if those bank holidays were in the counting period. If they were counted within that period it would be much shorter. I believe that holidays should be counted, whilst recognising that if a period ends with a holiday, the due day should be the next working day. Under the provisions of the Bill a period beginning on a Friday would discount Saturday and Sunday and end on Wednesday. The effect of this amendment would be that the period would end on a Monday.
We are discussing a fine point in regard to calculation of bank holidays.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it was not our intention to produce the effect that my noble friend discovered and raised with us at a previous stage. I am happy to accept my noble friend's amendments, which put it beyond all doubt that, for the purposes of enforcement, Scottish bank holidays are disregarded in Scotland, and English bank holidays are disregarded in England.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Emergency control orders]:
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Complaints about emergency control order.
(1) This section applies where any person makes a complaint to a justice of the peace on the ground that he is aggrieved by an emergency control order made under subsection 13 above, or by an emergency order made under section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
(2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on the basis of such evidence as he considers appropriate in the circumstances, that there was no imminent risk of injury to health from the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to food or food sources at the time when an order under section 13 above was made, or that food was not unsuitable for human consumption at the time when an emergency order under section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was made, the Minister shall compensate the owner of the food or food sources for any depreciation in the value of the food or food sources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have studied very carefully the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington at Committee stage. She was kind enough to write to me concerning this amendment.
Despite that fact, I am moving the same amendment not least because I fear that I have not explained the problem correctly. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, will ensure that the position is put quite clearly tonight.
The amendment would provide for compensation for the incorrect application of an emergency order and would only come into play if two rare conditions occurred, the first, of which would be if an emergency order was incorrectly made. A perfect example of that situation occurred recently when a farmer had an order placed on him regarding the movement of his stock because the authority thought that he had purchased lead-contaminated feed. When the invoice was inspected it turned out that the invoice was for rubber boots. The farmer could have suffered unnecessary loss. I hope that your Lordships will agree that in that case he should be compensated. The amendment deals with that point.
The only other point that the amendment deals with that would come into play is a situation where the food was not contaminated. My noble friend Lady Trumpington felt that this would overburden the justices because every farmer would appeal to
1158
the court. I beg to differ for the following reasons. First, farmers have better things to do than to make frivolous appeals before the courts which involve legal costs. Secondly, the order will be in force, so it will be up to the farmer to bring technical evidence to prove that he is correct. That is not an easy thing to do. It could only occur if a glaring mistake had been made. In those circumstances it is a bit like French law: the farmer is guilty until he can prove otherwise.
The amendment would be very seldom used. It cannot be used if the food is contaminated as, for instance, in the Chernobyl situation. It can be used only if there is a mistake by an official. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is important that the individual should always have the right to bring an official, or indeed a Minister of the Crown, before the law if there is evidence that they have acted incorrectly.
In Committee my noble friend said that the fear of such a proceeding would deter Ministers from acting. I believe I heard that tonight also from my noble friend Lady Hooper. I am surprised by such a statement. It reflects poorly on Ministers' characters and more importantly officials' ability. I, and I know your Lordships, would be unable to accept that my noble friend on the Front Bench has a weak character. I am sure that she will assure us that her department and environmental health officers have the expertise, the numbers and the ability to operate the Bill. The amendment does not set a precedent. It only duplicates the procedures set out in Clause 9, which we have just been discussing, which allow producers to appeal to a justice of the peace if they have evidence that they have been incorrectly discriminated against. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are pleased to support the amendment from this side of the House. It has been explained with great clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I should like to refer again to the point that he made which was mentioned in the letter sent to him by the Minister and to add my surprise at the suggestion that the fear of having to pay out large amounts of compensation would be likely to deter Ministers from taking swift action, the result of which would inevitably be to put consumers at greater risk. Surely we are not to believe that the fear of compensation would mean that the Ministry would not act with all the speed and expedition that one would expect in a matter of food safety. The House is entitled to ask the Minister to explain what was meant by the wording.
Another point was raised in the Minister's letter which I believe to be incorrect. It was that traders can insure against such risks and that once new provisions are enacted they may be better placed to seek legal redress from negligent and third parties. When we debated the orders dealing with lead contamintion last week I read a letter from a substantial feed supplier which showed that suppliers cannot obtain insurance cover in a number of areas of risk. It is incorrect to assume that insurance cover is available in all cases.

1159
I am pleased to support the noble Lord because a genuine problem exists which concerns many farmers and others to which the Government should address themselves.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment with care because the arguments which have been adduced against it are, to put it mildly, not practical. First, it is said that the polluter must pay. That is true, but in this case we are talking about an area which has been frozen because of a danger to health. It then turns out that the farm, for example, was incorrectly scheduled as being part of the area. Therefore, if the polluter is sued he can say, "I did not pollute your ground". There are all sorts of complications and the time factor is important.
If a Minister is to take action and wants the backing of the community, farmers need to be sure that they can obtain compensation for doing something which is in the public good and for the public health. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has already said that insurance is difficult to obtain. It is far too expensive. It is nearly impossible to specify all cases. I am sure that it would be difficult to cover everything that might happen in the small print.
I cannot understand why the Minister will not include or substitute a clause similar to Clause 9(7) which provides:
"If a notice under subsection (3)(a) above is withdrawn, or the justice of the peace by whom any food falls to be dealt with under this section refuses to condemn it, the food authority shall compensate the owner of the food for any depreciation in its value resulting from the action taken by the authorised officer".
If that applies to the food supplier who merely buys and sells the food, it should apply also to the grower who has spent years preparing the ground, as in the case of strawberries, for example. He waits the whole year to harvest his crop. If a restriction is placed upon him for 10 days it could ruin not only the ripe crop but that which is to follow. Some provision needs to be included to cover that point.
The amendment is logical but I shall be happy if the Minister cares to substitute a real alternative. In the meantime I do not doubt the justice of the case or the use it would be in obtaining the co-operation of the community in containing any outbreak of food poisoning or distribution of dangerous food.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the principle behind the amendment. It does not seem right to me that one group should be entitled to compensation and not another. I shall not comment on the wording of the clause because I have not studied it in detail. But it seems only fair that something along the lines of Clause 9 should be provided for other people.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is only right, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, that if one group of people is compensated, so should the other be. I feel so strongly about the point that if my noble friend were tempted to test the opinion of the House I give my noble and, if I may
1160
say so, great friend on the Front Bench fair warning that I might support him.
I could be impressed by my noble friend's arguments, but I should not be impressed if they were to take the following lines: first, it will be a great drain on the Exchequer. If it will be a great drain on the Exchequer it shows that the entire legislation is not working because Exchequer money will be called for only if there is a mistake. If it will be a drain on the Exchequer it means that the whole system is a nonsense.
Secondly, I do not believe that I should be impressed if I were told that the provision would put a great deal of extra work on JPs, because a great deal of work is being put on them in the other part of the Bill. I come from a rural area where such an occurrence might pop up, and it might make rather a pleasant change from the humdrum petty crime and motoring offences which we magistrates hear the whole time to have a bit of common sense like this to work out.
Thirdly, I should not be impressed if I were told that the farmer has the right to go to the High Court. Many of the farmers, especially the hill farmers in my part of the world, could not afford to go to the High Court and the idea would never occur to them. If my noble friend does not like the wording of the amendment, I hope that she will say that she will have a look at it again because, as I said, I shall be tempted to follow my noble friend through a different Lobby from her.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I live in the middle of an important agricultural area where there is a tremendous number of cattle and sheep. If no one can appeal against a proposal, and there is nothing in the Bill which would allow it to be questioned that would be most unfair. The Bill is designed to protect the consumer and also, I presume, the producer. It would be unfair if the producer were criticised or made to pay if the decision were incorrect. I think this amendment would help in that respect and it would be fair to the farmer as well as to the consumer.
7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I agree in principle with this amendment, although I speak from a different angle from that of the farmers.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I have certain sympathies with this amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley; and of course I am also an interested party. I still have the feeling that really this may be a misunderstanding which is causing a storm in a teacup. I very much hope so. It depends on the reply given by my noble friend. I do not think she was very mollifying in Committee when replying to my noble friend Lord Stanley. However, perhaps more light will be thrown upon the situation on this occasion.
I can only say that when we dealt with the matter of lead in feedingstuffs I, like many other farmers, wanted to check my own position very carefully.

1161
Where a farmer did not have, or did not use, the feed that was contaminated but was nevertheless banned from marketing his milk, I understand there to be no ability for him to claim under a third party policy and that there was no claim on the feedingstuffs supplier beyond his having to replace any feed that was contaminated.
I then got the comment that if the authorities extended their prohibitions too far they would be liable. Of course that is one area of conjecture. I understand that another area concerns the question of the claim against the feedingstuffs supplier. I believe those matters are still before the courts, and perhaps not only the courts in this country.
I wonder what the Minister will do if those cases go against the farmers, because it will put them in a most unfortunate position; there is no doubt about that. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be keeping a close eye on that matter. It would help enormously, I think, if she could give some assurance to farmers as to what the position would be if the result of the court actions were to be as one might fear.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I appreciate that there are enormous problems in thinking through how to apply an arrangement of this sort, but I am bound to say I do not think that the Government can ignore the matter. As my noble friend Lord Stanley has said, it is only in rather rare circumstances that this crops up. It has to be because an official has actually made a mistake so that the emergency order was incorrect, or the feed turned out not to be contaminated. There was a time when farmers had plenty of room for manoeuvre. I was one of them and I do not know whether or not I owned up to it; but there was room for manoeuvre. If someone was unjust to a farmer he could probably accept the extra cost. I am not a farmer now, but I know it is very difficult nowadays in many areas to farm profitably. To treat farmers differently in this respect from other producers of food is not only unjust, but wrong. It shows a certain lack of awareness on the part of the Government of the problems that can be created. So I hope that my noble friend, if she is going to defend the Government's position on this matter, will go away and think very hard about it. This is a big problem. Times have changed and farmers have a right to the understanding of the public and of your Lordships' House in this particular respect.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I fear there will always be times in life when I cannot follow my noble friend Lord Swinton through every door he opens. I cannot accept the amendment put forward by the noble Lords, for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, I have a fundamental objection. This amendment is logically out of place in this Bill. The powers it contains, and those contained in Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, are concerned with protecting consumers. There are other safeguards for manufacturers and traders. The law already holds
1162
Ministers accountable if they act negligently or unreasonably in the exercise of their powers.
Secondly, it is clear that in an emergency the Government's principal duty may be to protect the consumer. Where it is not possible to establish all the relevant facts immediately, consumers are entitled to expect Ministers to feel no inhibitions about erring on the side of caution. In other emergency situations involving a serious threat to public health and safety, the emergency authorities are free to introduce immediate precautions without concern for possible financial penalties.
Returning to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, I ask your Lordships seriously to consider whether the introduction of compensation in this clause could act as a deterrent to Ministers concerned about possible financial implications, when their concern should be for the health of the public. Provided that Ministers are acting reasonably —and I have already said that it will remain open to anyone who wishes to test this in court —the risks to commerical operators should be very small. The powers we are seeking provide the utmost flexibility of operation in order that precautionary restrictions may be lifted in whole or in part immediately it is safe to do so.
Thirdly, there are a number of problems relating to the particular approach embraced in this amendment which we did consider at Committee stage. In particular we fear that the judicial system could well be plunged into chaos if everyone subject to an emergency order (and there could be many thousands affected by a single order) decided to register a complaint with a justice of the peace. If this seems fanciful, let me ask what anyone would have to lose under the terms of this amendment by making such an application "just on the off-chance", when the potential commercial advantage is so obvious.
Moreover, very few JPs could be reasonably expected to have the necessary technical expertise to make a judgment or, in the early stages of an incident, to have sufficient facts to second-guess the Minister's judgment on what may or may not constitute a risk to human health. Since this amendment is so fundamentally at variance with the objectives of the clause, I will not spend time on detailed drafting points, beyond pausing to wonder how it could possibly work in practice. How, for example, would the level of compensation be determined? Are the Government expected to compensate at the client's own valuation or is the JP also expected to calculate the appropriate depreciation in value? Or, again, is it envisaged that some new tribunal be set up to work through such claims? The amendment gives no guidance on this rather vital pratical question: nor does it place any limit on the number of applications a party may make. Presumably a claimant could approach one JP after another until he finds one who will agree with his case.
On insurance, people can legally insure if they can find an insurance company willing to cover the risk. The latter may be a little difficult, I freely admit. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord,

1163
Lord Stanley of Alderley, who told a jolly little story about an invoice for rubber boots, I am reliably informed that this has been checked out by my Ministry. Nobody has as yet been able to substantiate this story.
Before I sit down, I should like to return to the more general argument. Could I press the noble Lord further with a mixture of principle and practical concern?
The amendment seeks to introduce the possibility of compensation if, with the benefit of hindsight, Ministers turn out to be mistaken in taking emergency measures. They would not even know at the outset where the particular consignment was contaminated.
I am responding to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Obviously all that they can do is to take a view of what appears prudent or necessary at the time when crucial decisions have to be made. We want Ministers to be free to do what is in the public interest without risk of legal challenge. We do not want them to become liable to pay compensation, if and when, additional facts come to light, if it is apparent that they were mistaken although acting in good faith.
I also remind noble Lords that present emergency action is taken under voluntary arrangements. We have made it clear that we hope these will continue with emergency control orders being the exception rather than the rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Banshee, asked —I am so sorry, I do apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness permit me to say that I take little offence from her calling me the noble Lord, Lord Banshee. I object much more to the remainder of the speech!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall still civilly answer the point that he raised. He asked why we do not insert the provision from Clause 9. Clause 13 is quite different. It will be used when the risk is widespread. Clause 9 in contrast applies to a single seizure of food. The emergency control orders are not only for use against farmers. On the contrary, we would often expect to use the Food and Environment Protection Act for on-farm problems. What they will do is to back up the Department of Health's hazard warning systems which are used to withdraw food when there is a risk to public health. The provisions of Clause 13 will therefore also apply to manufacturers and retailers of food.
We did pay compensation. An example is that to date almost £7 million that the Government have paid to those farmers affected by the restrictions following the Chernobyl accident were despite the absence of any specific statutory provisions within the Food and Environment Protection Act.
I have a great many more arguments to deploy, but I believe that the time has come when your Lordships will wish to make up your minds.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness wrung our hearts with the quite pitiful vision of Ministers who acted in good faith having to pay compensation. Does she agree that they would not have to pay compensation out of their own pockets?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, replies, perhaps I could allow him the benefit of what happened to me.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Lyell: My Lords, at Report stage I may speak once on each amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, not after the Minister.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their help, with the one exception, I am afraid, of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Obviously we cannot agree on this. If the amendment is wrongly drafted, as we all know it is always possible to correct that afterwards. Certainly I can put the details in it.
However, I wish to address the principle. I do not think that my noble friend has addressed herself to that. I shall comment very briefly on the points that have not already been raised. Most of the points that she brought up have already been raised. It is no good behaving like children, saying, "Yes, you did"; "No, you did not." I shall comment only on those that have not been brought up.
First, I am reliably informed that if one goes to the ombudsman he has no power whatsoever to direct the Minister. He can only advise. That course of action is therefore out for the farmer.
A judicial review is not possible in the case of an individual farmer. I am sorry that we have not got this difference over to my noble friend. We are talking about very few individual cases because of the terms in which the amendment is drafted. I do not believe that she and her department have looked carefully at it. To have a judicial review for an individual farmer is quite out of the question. One might have a judicial review if the Minister designated Norfork instead of Suffolk. That is the situation in which a judicial review would be brought.
I received the assurance from the Minister which I welcomed that in the end the Government paid for Chernobyl. I was affected by Chernobyl. I can remember the agony that we went through before we received compensation. I do not wish to see a repeat of what happened then, when my right honourable friend Michael Jopling had to go every week on his knees before the Chancellor and say, "Please spare a penny for the farmer". I do not wish to see my noble friend having to do that. I do not mind seeing her on her knees, but I do not think she would wish to be put in that position. I mean that seriously. I believe that the provision should be on the statute book.

1165
The other point is the question of the Minister failing to act, or being worried about acting, because of the provision. I am appalled by that argument. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought it up. I shall have to repeat it. If the environmental health officers are properly qualified, and if there are enough of them, they will not make mistakes. If one makes mistakes, I was always taught that one pays for them. That is all that I am asking for. I shall not continue because obviously unfortunately we cannot agree. I shall have to ask for the opinion of the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 54.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blyth, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Congleton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Phillips, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Erroll, E.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Falkland, V.

Savile, L.

Forbes, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinton, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Tryon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wise, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wynford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Borthwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Caithness, E.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hives, L.

Colwyn, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kenilworth, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

1166

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodney, L.

Margadale, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.24 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 25 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990 Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1990 Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations 1990 Social Security (Industrial Injuries)(Regular Employment) Regulations 1990 Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations 1990
7.25 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the three draft orders and the three draft regulations all of 1990, standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved.
Before I address the orders I wish to repeat a point made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 25th October in announcing the uprating of social security benefits. In the coming year we shall be spending a record amount on social security; that is, more than £55 billion. This means that expenditure on this vital area will be running in excess of £1 billion each and every week. I believe that that is a measure of two important issues: first, the success of the Government's policies in generating wealth which can be shared by all: and, secondly, the level of our commitment to a social security system able to provide real help to those whose need is greatest.
I should first like to set out our intentions for financing contributory benefits, on which we plan to spend more than £30 billion in 1990/91. For the seventh year running we do not propose to change the rates of Class 1 contributions in the coming year.

1167
However, the lower and upper earnings limits will be raised to £46 and to £350 per week respectively. Therefore, most employees will pay less in Class 1 contributions.
As regards employers, we propose to increase each of the earnings limits below which they pay lower contribution rates roughly in line with inflation and rounded to the nearest £5. These proposals ease the cost of employing some lower paid workers, and I am sure that the House will welcome that.
As regards self-employed people, we propose to increase Class 2 contributions by 30 pence to £4·55 per week from next April. We do not propose any change to the profits-related Class 4 rate paid by some self-employed people. The profits limits on which contributions are payable will be increased to £5,450 and £18,200 respectively.
I turn to the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations. They have been considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and its report incorporating the Secretary of State's response is also before the House. The regulations provide for an increase, by more than the level of inflation for the lower rate of SSP, of £3 to £39–25. The higher rate is increased by the more limited sum of 40 pence to £52·50. The regulations also propose that the earnings threshold which determines when the higher rate becomes payable be increased from £84 to £125 per week. This produces some limited restructuring of the earnings band which divides the two rates in order to restore the position to that which applied when SSP began in 1983.
I stress to the House that the regulations will not generally lead to employees receiving a reduction in payment when sick. That is because the difference will be made up by occupational sick pay from the employer, which now covers 91 per cent. of employees.
I readily acknowledge that, because of the way that SSP and occupational sick pay schemes interact, employers will, under the proposals, bear a slightly greater proportion of the cost of short-term sickness. However, compared with total labour costs of business of approximately £250 billion, the shift is very small and we do not believe it to be unreasonable. The changes in SSP are wholly consistent with the Government's objective to help those most in need.
I shall now, if I may, briefly address the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1990. This order obliges occupational pensions schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings-related pensions scheme to provide post-award increases of GMPs (earned in the tax year 1988–89) by 3 per cent. from the 6th April this year.
The draft Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations largely flesh out the administrative details of the recoupment scheme. There are two matters which make these regulations subject to the affirmative procedure: first, the range of benefits in regulation 2; and, secondly, the small payment limit in regulation 3. The benefits were announced during the passage of last year's Bill and there are no
1168
surprises in regulation 2. The list is as it was when we first announced it and is broadly the same as the list of benefits which are currently offset by compensators.
My honourable friend the Minister of State announced the small payment limit of £2,500 on 21st December last in a Written Answer in the other place. It is a 60 per cent. increase on the original £1,500 figure proposed by Touche Ross and will reduce the administrative cost of the scheme by leaving about 37 per cent. of cases subject to offsetting. In this way compensators will continue to claw back about £2 million a year which will help towards any additional costs which they may have from the scheme.
The draft Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Regular Employment) Regulations stem from the abolition of the pensioner's earnings rule. These regulations are beneficial and clarify the likely entitlement to reduced earnings allowance of people who are either approaching or are over pension age.
I shall now turn to the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1990. This order provides for an increase in retirement pension and virtually all other benefits which are not income-related of 7·6 per cent. which is the increase in retail prices which took place between September 1988 and September 1989.
I am well aware of the strong feelings of noble Lords and of honourable Members in another place about the Government's decision not to increase the level of child benefit this year. I do not propose to repeat everything that has already been said on this subject, but I shall make just a few observations which I hope noble Lords will bear in mind.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said only last week, targeting involves making judgments about the needs of different groups at a particular time and the relative weight of their claims to any additional resources that can be made available. In fulfilling the legal requirement to review the level of child benefit this year my right honourable friend took account of the rapid and considerable increases in real incomes of the great majority of working families with children.
Over the past year alone the real take-home pay of a married man on average male earnings, including the effect of the £3 a week reduction in national insurance contributions, has risen by around £20 a week. For a married man with two children it has risen by around a third over the past decade. And in the numerous cases where both partners are working, the overall increase in family income will have been even greater. It was against this background of rapidly rising living standards and substantial extra resources being made available in this year's uprating that my right honourable friend felt on this occasion that greater priority should be given to the needs of less well-off families who are out of work or in low-paid work, pensioners, disabled people, their carers and families with disabled children.
The final observation which I would wish to make is simply that not only would an increase in child benefit, at a net cost of £250 million, have given relatively small amounts to large numbers of families

1169
who cannot be said to need it, but, more to the point, it would have done nothing at all to help the 3 million children (almost a quarter of all children) in families receiving income support and family credit because these benefits are adjusted to take account of changes in child benefit. In contrast, what we have done by directing more resources to families with children through the income-related benefits is to bring the total amount of extra help provided for these families to over £350 million a year in real terms since April 1988.
Thus, in deciding the level of benefits for April this year the Government were able to go beyond the normal uprating of benefits in line with prices through a package of extra help to priority groups. For example, the family premium income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit will be increased by an extra 50p above inflation and an extra £1 a week will reach those working families getting family credit. With the introduction of family credit we are now spending twice as much on working families with children compared with its predecessor, family income supplement.
The lone parent premium in housing benefit and community charge benefit will be increased by 12·8 per cent. from £8·60 to £9·70 a week. From October the amount lone parents can earn without affecting their housing and community charge benefit entitlement will be increased from £15 to £25 a week. These changes will help about 95,000 lone parent families. We are increasing the social fund maternity payment from £85 to £100. We have increased the social fund capital level which people aged 60 or over may hold from £500 to £1,000. This improvement took effect on 1st January 1990 for cold weather payments and applies to other social fund payments from 9th April 1990. This will enable more elderly people to be helped by the social fund.
We are increasing the adult disability premium in income-related benefits from £13·70 to £15·40, which is £1 more than inflation. We are more than doubling the child's disability premium in income-related benefits from £6·50 to £15·40. These changes and others we are proposing will provide significant extra help to many people whose need is greatest.
While concentrating on the changes contained in the order, it is right that I should also remind the House of a number of other changes which have been, are being or will be brought about by other mechanisms but which are very much part of the context in which this particular order is brought before the House.
Last October we abolished the pensioners earnings rule and made substantial increases in the income support and housing benefit premiums for disabled pensioners and those over 75. We are preparing and will shortly lay regulations to extend attendance allowance to families with severely disabled babies and to extend mobility allowance to those who are both deaf and blind.
The current Social Security Bill now in Committee in another place extends attendance allowance to the terminally ill without the normal six-month waiting
1170
period and provides for an age-related addition of the severe disablement allowance. Last week we referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee draft regulations, all of which we hope to make by April, to make further beneficial changes in relation to income-related benefits, of which I should mention one in particular.
As described in an answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary last week, we shall double to £10 a week the current disregard for charitable and voluntary payments made to people receiving an income-related benefit and disregard completely any regular charitable or voluntary payment intended and used for an item other than certain accommodation costs met by benefit, food, ordinary clothing or footwear and household fuel. This change will allow charities, voluntary bodies and relatives to give more help to people without affecting their benefits.
The increase in social security expenditure between 1989–90 and 1990–91, most of it arising from this order, is £3 billion. It takes the total of social security expenditure next year to nearly £56 billion. As I said at the start of my speech, that is over £1 billion each and every week.
But what is no less important than the amounts involved is what we are doing with it and the people we are seeking to help. Taken together, these changes and those relating to the wider changes providing help for disabled people announced by my right honourable friend on 10th January mean that in a comparatively short space of time we will have brought about a real improvement in the position of nearly 3 million of the least-well-off pensioners, 850,000 disabled people and carers, 1·5 million low-income families with children, including nearly 100,000 lone parents and around 50,000 war widows.
Next year we shall be spending more than ever before on social security, with expenditure running at more than £1 billion each and every week; that is, £20 per week for every man, woman and child in the country. I believe that the changes that we are proposing are a demonstration of this Government's commitment to a social security system which delivers real help to those whose need is greatest. I commend the orders and regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]. —(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he introduced these Motions and I congratulate him on the lucidity with which he dealt with these very complicated matters.

1171
I have very little to say about the guaranteed minimum pensions order and the social security industrial injuries regulations; the changes seem to be largely technical.
In relation to the industrial injuries regulations the Minister neglected to remind the House that it is, as I understand it, the Government's intention to abolish the reduced earnings allowance for all new claimants. I propose to concentrate on the re-rating, the uprating and the recoupment regulations. We should remind ourselves that the total paid in national insurance contributions of some £32 billion is two-thirds of the amount raised in income tax. It is a pity we do not often have the opportunity to debate the tax and national insurance systems together because for most low-paid people national insurance is a more relevant "tax" than income tax.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the record amount of £55 billion which the Government are spending on social security. I expected him to quote that figure. Perhaps I can remind him that almost every spending programme of all government departments has increased every year from time immemorial, with the exception under this Government of agriculture. However, I remind the House that social security now receives a lower share of national resources than 10 years ago, despite 3 million more people on income support, twice as many unemployed and 1 million more pensioners.
Mr. John Hills has pointed out that,
"Overall, the bottom half of the population has lost £6.6 billion"—
that is, in tax changes and benefit changes —
"of which £5.6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent. and £4.8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent."
With regard to child benefit, as the Minister said, this has now been frozen for the third year running and that freeze is worth £250 milllion to the Government. That is to be compared with a £70 million increase in family credit. The real value of child benefit has been cut by 20 per cent. We are told that child benefit goes to those who do not need it because it is paid, as we know, regardless of income. However, when it comes to targeting it, as the Minister will know, that is a logic not applied to mortgage interest relief, to the contributions to private pension schemes and now to tax relief for private health schemes for the elderly. The richer you are the more you benefit from those reliefs.
Something that struck me recently was, as I understand it, that the figure for uprating child benefit is actually included in the public expenditure plans of the department, and therefore when the Government decide to freeze it, obviously they have those funds available to use for increases in other benefits. I should be glad if the Minister could comment on that. No doubt we shall return to child benefit and the Social Security Bill when it reaches this House in one or two month's time.
I saw a quotation from the other place at col. 931 of Hansard on 7th February. Mr. Paul Flynn referred to a Conservative MP who appeared on a Channel 4 TV programme explaining to aspirant Members of
1172
Parliament from Hungary and Poland how to write a manifesto. He said:
"In the Conservative manifesto of 1987 we made a promise about child benefit, saying that it would be paid as now and direct to the mother. Of course, when we come up against a problem, we can look back to the manifesto and if we want to pay the benefit, we can pay it, but if we do not want to pay it —if we want to freeze it —we can freeze it because the sentence was ambiguous". —[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/90; col. 931.]
That is a revealing quotation. I may have been out of order when quoting from Hansard of another place. If so I apologise to the Minister, which will save him time in reminding me. I should perhaps have paraphrased it.
I shall say only a few words about retirement pensions because I know that my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon will be speaking about pensions. The point about breaking the link with earnings has been made many times in the past, but it is worth reminding ourselves that if the link had not been broken, the single pensioner would be receiving £60 per week instead of £46·90 and for a married couple the pension would be £95·80 instead of £75·10.
Perhaps I may repeat a point I made before. Most of the financial surplus in the public sector for which the Government take credit results from breaking the link between earnings and pensions. The repayment of the national debt is in fact coming out of the pockets of pensioners. I am sure the Minister when he replies will refer to the other sources of a pensioner's income, but if so he must attempt to deal with the point that more than half of all pensioners live on or near the poverty line.
Another point which has often puzzled me in respect of pensions is that in private pension schemes it is standard practice to link the eventual pension payment to earnings. Since the Government believe that the private sector knows best about most things, why does not the practice of the private sector also apply to the public sector when it comes to retirement pensions?
I turn now to statutory sick pay. What we have seen amounts to a downgrading of statutory sick pay. The lowest rate of SSP has been increased by a princely 25p per week more than inflation. The highest rate increased by £3·55 —less than inflation. The increase is in fact 0·76 per cent. As the Minister said, the higher rate now to be paid is £125 a week instead of £84 a week; that will cost employers the slightly greater amount of £80 million per year.
The Minister also said, as was quoted in another place, that 91 per cent. of employees are now covered by occupational sick-pay schemes and the Government are looking to those schemes to make up the difference. If those schemes have to pay out more as a result of that, what will happen to the premiums for those schemes? Presumably they will have to increase. The rise in the earnings threshold means that hundreds of thousands of workers will be disqualified from higher rate statutory sick pay. As the Minister said, the Social Security Advisory Committee did not approve of this change. It would perhaps have been helpful to the House if the Minister had briefly given the reasons why the Government rejected the advice of the SSAC.

1173
I turn now to the recoupment regulations. That was a subject which we discussed at great length during the Social Security Bill in the last Session. Most of us understand the clawing back of benefits related to income. What we fail to understand is why that part of the compensation which relates to pain, hurt or suffering should be clawed back. As I say, that is a point we debated at great length on the Social Security Bill. We believe that change could lead to further delays for victims who are awaiting compensation. We are also entitled to ask the reason for rejecting the advice of the British Insurance Association when it suggested that the small payment limit should be £5,000 rather than £2,500 which is the figure in the regulations.
Is there a danger with the change that insurance companies will be encouraged to minimise compensation, particularly in out-of-court settlements, so as to reduce their possible liability and to compensate the Department of Social Security? The saving to the Government is £55 million. What will happen to that money? Will it be used to increase those benefits which are to be clawed back under the regulations?
The Minister referred to the social fund. As we know, the budget for the social fund is effectively being all but frozen for the third year at £205 million, despite increasing reports of claimants being refused grants and loans for urgent needs. The latest figures show that at December 1989 56 per cent. of community care grant applications (18,411) and 40 per cent. of budgeting loan applications (26,546) were refused. We think that the £20 million saved in the 1988–89 social fund budget should be added to the 1990–91 budget, and the budget for community care grants should be uprated for inflation.
Finally, the Minister made a point about the amount that the Government are spending on social security. We welcome the increases where they apply. I have seen a calculation that government expenditure over and above inflation for disability and carers' benefits, families and elderly people, adds up to £185 million. The government savings from the freezing of child benefit and the restructuring of statutory sick pay amounts to between £320 million and £330 million. So there has been an overall saving of £135 million to £145 million.
We are seeing a picture where the increases in some benefits are paid for by the freezing or the reduction of others. In the department it is very much a case of having to pass the money from one pocket to another rather than providing genuine increases in the benefits which are needed for the people I have mentioned: the additional 3 million people on income support; the increase in the number of unemployed; and the million additional pensioners.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in congratulating the Minister on the lucidity with which he has introduced these regulations. I should also like to
1174
say that I found the regulations themselves a little less impenetrable than usual. I look first at the recoupment order on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will also be saying something in a moment. That was debated exhaustively and indeed I might say exhaustingly, in this House. It was also debated in the office of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
I will not run through all the arguments that we had. We pursued them to the Division Lobby and we lost. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the small payments' limit. I feel a considerable misgiving about the vast administrative and bureaucratic apparatus that will be necessary to enforce the machinery of that clause. Since the situation is what it is now, I hope that we were wrong about it, but I am not yet persuaded of that.
I turn now to the statutory sick pay regulations and I do so with a certain amount of misgiving. I observe that they are signed by authority of the "Security" of State for Social Security. I cannot help wondering whether they are an official secret and I should not be talking about them at all. Nevertheless, the Minister expounded them with commendable honesty. They raise the earnings' limit for the higher rate from £84 to £125 a week. That is a considerable jump. The justification given is that 91 per cent. of people have occupational pensions. That raises a problem as regards those who have not. I believe that here we shall find another aspect of the problems created by the part-time revolution; namely, the people who miss out on the steady occupational schemes. I believe that matter will need our attention in the future.
The Secretary of State remarked that employers will bear a greater proportion of the costs of long-term sickness. I believe that we have here, as we have concerning the recoupment order, part of the process of steady, creeping privatisation of liability. That is something which I view with some misgiving. I also view with some misgiving, particularly in our present industrial situation, the transferring of costs from the Exchequer where they are widely shared, specifically onto the backs of industry. The Confederation of British Industry in a leaflet on the economic needs of 1990, has complained that the Government continue to pass through unjustified cost increases to companies. I believe that the statutory sick pay order is a case in point. For the sake of our industrial recovery, which is urgent, I regret it.
I turn now to the uprating order which is obviously our main business this evening. It is the duty of Oppositions to be thankful for small mercies and I am. I welcome the increase in the child disability premium and I welcome particularly warmly the carers' premium. The problem of carers is one about which we have heard a good deal. My noble friend Lady Seear has spoken very movingly on this subject a number of times. It is also an issue which is beginning to interest the Equal Opportunities Commission whose locus standi in the matter is obvious.
We need to do a great deal more about carers. The measure is not a substitute for a solution, but as a

1175
first step I welcome it. I welcome the concession on the attendance allowance for the terminally ill announced in this House in response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lady Seear. I wish to raise one small misgiving about that. When the matter was debated in the House it was clearly the intention to include AIDS in the list of what was to be covered.
It has been put to me whether we are correct in using the phrase "a progressive disease" to describe AIDS or is the progressive disease the secondary infection which in fact usually kills the patient. I hope that, before we reach the Bill later in the year, the Minister will undertake to look at the problem to see whether AIDS is satisfactorily covered because that was so clearly the intention of those who made the concession.
I warmly welcome the extension of the mobility allowance of the deaf-blind whose plight was so movingly described last summer by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. On the other hand, correspondingly I regret deeply the failure to extend the mobility allowance to those with mental handicap. I appreciate, as the Secretary of State said, that there are difficuties in the way of finding satisfactory definitions. I would welcome an assurance that the Secretary of State is working on ways to overcome those obstacles.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's remark in another place that he is looking at ways of improving the medical adjudication procedures which have caused considerable anxiety. I also associate myself with the remark made by my honourable friend Mr. Taylor in another place, that the mobility allowance is of particular importance to people in rural areas. I once lived in an area near my honourable friend's constituency. It was a two-and-a-half hours' drive to the nearest hospital. In those circumstances one can imagine the problems of out-patient appointments.
As regards the overall matter of disability, I feel that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse. Last summer we were told over an over again that there was a massive survey going on at the hands of the OPCS and that there would be an overall review of disability benefits at the end of that review. What has happened is good but it is not very much. I hope the Minister can tell us whether that is really all we are getting in the way of a review of disability benefits. If that is so, then those who undertook the labour of conducting those surveys —and a very considerable labour it was —might feel legitimately disappointed.
There are a number of matters which one must welcome with a certain reservation. I refer to the increased earnings' disregard for single parents which is not a substitute for a child care disregard for income support and for housing benefit. In a sense it is obiter on this occasion as he was speaking on a slightly different subject, but I hope that it is in order to welcome the remarks made by the former Secretary of State for Employment on tax allowances for the cost of child care as reported in today's paper. I fully agree with them.
1176
I welcome, as far they go, the increases in support for residential care for the elderly, but I note, as my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood said in another place, the great likelihood that they will all be swallowed up in increased fees. In thinking about that, I am led to wonder whether we have a satisfactory system and whether indeed residential care for the elderly is an entirely suitable subject for the application of the free market. I should have thought that, if anything, they would be looked upon as a captive market, and in the circumstances I hope there will be some long-term thought about the system.
I welcome the concession for war widows but associate myself with the question asked in another place by the honourable Member for Aylesbury. In these days of equality of opportunity, will that concession apply to war widowers? I think it should. There are other things which one cannot welcome. I regret the failure to uprate the limits for savings disregards; for example, in the case of family credit. That looks to me like an erosion of one of the few significant victories in the course of the passage of the 1986 legislation. I regret, of course, and regret deeply, the failure to uprate child benefit. I shall not bore the House by repeating familiar arguments but I should like to say that I agree with everything said by the honourable Member for Aylesbury in another place.
I should also like to touch on one or two arguments which are not quite so familar. The business before us tonight illustrates why there will always be a lower take-up rate for means-tested benefits. All the limits are now being changed. I doubt whether even the Minister, if I met him outside the Chamber in a few minutes, could remember them all by heart without looking at his papers. If the Minister cannot, and I cannot, how do we expect those in receipt of benefits to remember them? I feel strongly that we under-rate the difficulty of tackling the social security system for people who are not always among the most successful in our society.
When limits change every year there will always be a low take-up rate. People will be out of date in their knowledge of the limits. I feel strongly that the Government are continually increasing the liabilities facing parents. I refer to the teenagers who are supposed to stay at home and to the new measures on criminal punishment. The one which concerns me at the moment is the rapidly rising cost of school books. I accept what the Minister said about wages in child rearers' pockets, but if he cared to look into the matter he might find that the cost of school books is increasing a good deal faster than wages. That might deprive the argument of some of the force which it appeared to carry. I also believe that when one has neither child benefit nor child tax allowance one distorts the market in favour of the childless. From a Government who purport to believe in free market theory that is a use of state power to achieve a social purpose which I am rather surprised they hold.
I regret too that nothing has been done to narrow the gap between the rates of income support for teenagers and for older people. I have recently moved

1177
to King's College in the Strand. When I go home late in the evening I regularly watch the uncomfortable sight of people bedding down in doorways. During the gales and rain of the past few weeks it has been a very uncomfortable sight indeed. The Secretary of State could at least have slightly narrowed that gap. I am sorry that he has not. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the social fund. I have tabled a Question on that subject, and so I shall not pursue it further tonight.
Finally, on the total sum of money invloved, I agree with my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood that there is some sleight of hand on the subject of total money. In looking at the discrepancy between Government figures and Opposition figures on total money, the key variable seems to be whether one counts the £250 million set aside for uprating child benefit. If that it not counted, it surely seems to imply that the Secretary of State never genuinely reviewed child benefit and that there was no serious plan to uprate it.
Beyond that —I must be careful how I put this point —I agree with what my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee said on 31st January. When listening to Government claims on spending we sometimes feel we are listening to a rather panglossian argument. I know that the social security budget is high —I spoke in the debate on the humble Address about how it might be lower —but I do not see the extreme generosity on which the Minister prided himself. I found it very hard indeed to square that with the evidence of my own eyes in a great many places. Perhaps I may say in this context that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will be successful in the ballot with his Motion for a debate on the quality of government statistics.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope that I shall be brief enough to enable us to get on with the other business as soon as we have disposed of the business before us.
I am advised by the CBI on this matter. It feels that it has been bounced this year. It normally has good relations with the Department of Social Security and is given ample time for discussions on particular matters. The particular matter this time concerns the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations. On 16th January the director general wrote to the Secretary of State. He did not receive a reply. On 18th January the order was laid. That gave the CBI very little time to respond, but, more importantly, it dismisssed in a rather cavalier fashion any thoughts the CBI might have had on the matter.
The CBI has three points. I should emphasise that when the orders were laid in another place the main feature of the debate on the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations was the loss of benefit to employees. The effect on employers was rather lost. My noble friend the Minister gave the figures and we have also heard about the total saving of £80 million per annum. Industry has three main concerns. Most of those £80 million savings will be made at the employers' expense because the great majority of employees receive occupational sick pay.
1178
That point was made by other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whom I thank for his contribution.
My noble friend said that the sum of £80 million was small in relation to the total labour costs in the economy of £250 million. I would suggest to him that that is a cheap point. It is a drop in the ocean compared with other expenditure that my noble friend and the Government fund, but the relative amount to an individual employer is not a drop in the ocean. Furthermore, it is not evenly spread. Any increase in employers' costs is particularly unwelcome at the moment because of the urgent need to reduce unit labour costs.
It is fair to say that the one stumbling block to success for this country in the future is the fact that, try as we may, our unit labour costs are still much higher. They have fallen a good deal in the past 10 years but they are still much higher than those of our major competitors. Moreover, anything which adds to that must be bad. The fact that the Department of Social Security is not concerned with that kind of consideration does not mean that it does not have to take the matter seriously. Costs should not be shelved off on employers because that will not make this country competitive. Further, the money will not be coming in to fund social security.
The second major point is that employees will receive less sick pay and they will expect the employers to make up their losses. As my noble friend said, most employees will not be worse off as a result of the changes because their employers pay full pay during the initial weeks of sickness. However, many will find that they are worse off. It is likely that employees in particular sectors of the economy will suffer most. I say that because there are certain sectors in which employees are less likely to be covered by occupational sick pay schemes.
My noble friend said that 91 per cent. of employees are covered. However, only 56 per cent. of employers provide an occupational sick pay scheme. Moreover, half of those companies employing between one to nine employees do not provide such a. scheme; nor do a quarter of those employing 100 or less employees. Further, almost three-quarters of employees covered by occupational sick pay schemes are affected by eligibility conditions. For example, in order to qualify for sick pay an employee must be employed for, typically, three to 12 months. Employees working in such sectors as retailing and hotel and catering are likely to have especially high turnover rates. Turnover rates between 30 per cent. and 100 per cent. are still not uncommon at the junior grades. I say "still" because when I was a director of the Distributive Industry Training Board we reckoned that anyone in the retail trade who had a turnover rate of less than 40 per cent. was doing very well. I suspect that that will always be so.
Employees who are earning between £90 and £125 per week will see an especially sharp fall in their statutory sick pay, as will those who receive flat-rate occupational sick pay paid at the top of the scale. I shall not continue with that line of argument. I shall leave the matter there because time is running out and we must allow my noble friend adequate time to reply.

1179
The third point about which members of the CBI are particularly concerned is that this measure is but the first step of the Government passing the total responsibility for sick pay to employers. Thus the whole cost of the statutory sick pay scheme, which is currently £1 billion, would be transferred to employers, representing a 2·5 per cent. addition to labour costs. That is not acceptable when employers and employees pay around £25 billion in national insurance contributions in order to pay for benefits such as statutory sick pay.
I should very much like to receive a reassurance —and, if possible, a convincing one —from my noble friend on that last point that it is not the thin end of the wedge. Moreover, as it is much too late for us to reject the orders, I should also like him to tell me that the points we have raised have been appreciated. Perhaps he will also say that he regrets the fact that the Secretary of State did not reply to the Director General of the CBI before the orders were laid. In my view, although we cannot really call it bad manners, it is something of that order. I should very much like to receive those reassurances.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to know whether he agrees with the point that I put forward. Employees are covered by occupational sick pay schemes. If those schemes are funded through the insurance system, is it not a fact that if they have to pay out more the premiums will increase?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, there is not sufficient time for me to analyse the matter. Of course, the noble Lord may well be right and if there was a little more time available I would be able to do a little sum and provide him with an answer. However, that is not possible.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should also like to speak to the uprating order. Indeed, I shall confine myself to speaking to just one item in the order. My noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have dealt in full with all the items in the order, but I wish to draw attention to the extent to which state retirement pensions are falling behind as a proportion of male gross earnings.
I think that we should set on record the fact that for a single person in 1977 the pension was 21 per cent. of male gross earnings; that is, £17·50 per week. In April 1990 that figure will have dropped to 16 per cent. Therefore the pension of a single person will have fallen to only 16 per cent. of male gross earnings. In the case of a married couple, in 1977 their pension constituted 33·6 per cent. of male gross earnings, but by April 1990 that percentage will have fallen to 25·6 per cent. That means a drop from 33·6 per cent. to 25·6 per cent. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows, that drop has been caused by the break in the link with earnings —a link established by the Labour Government —which was the course the Conservatives took in November 1980. That action has had baleful consequences for pensioners ever since.
1180
In money terms, single pensioners would be enjoying £13·10 per week extra —in other words, £60 per week rather than £46·90 —if the link with earnings had been maintained. Moveover, for a married couple the extra pension would amount to £20·70 per week; that is, £95·80 instead of £75·10. Translated into annual terms, in 1990 a single pensioner will be £681 worse off and a married couple will be £1,076 worse off as a direct result of the wilful and criminal decision of this Government to end the pensions link with earnings.
Further, due to the ending of that link a single pensioner has lost in total terms, £2,419 between November 1981 and March 1990. A married couple have lost £3,813 during the same period. Moreover, by March 1991 the loss will have grown to £3,100 for a single pensioner and to £4,889 for a married couple. Those are very significant figures, especially as regards very poor people.
The Government boast about the whole nation sharing in greater prosperity which they say they have created. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, told us all about that when he introduced the orders. However, that certainly does not apply to pensioners since their income from the state retirement pension has only kept up with the cost of living.
Pensioner couples, and some single pensioners, are about to suffer another blow as a result of the imposition of the poll tax. That applies not only in the so-called Labour "spendthrift" local authorities, but also in the Tory heartlands such as Berkshire where the county treasurer is reported as believing that the poll tax will turn out to be not the £278 estimated by the Government, but between £400 and £450 per poll tax payer. If that turns out to be true then single pensioners will not benefit at all from the poll tax —as they were supposed to do —and married couple pensioners will pay, on average, nearly twice as much in poll tax as they now do in rates.
I have made my point. I hope that the Government will think seriously about what they have done to pensioners and their standard of living in destroying the link between pensioners, the state retirement pensions and the male gross earnings. The Government have done a great disservice to pensioners. If the Government and Mrs. Thatcher really want us to believe that they have a heart and that all should share in the great prosperity that they say they have brought about, they will reverse the position on pensioners and give them a good boost in their weekly and annual income.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wish to start by commiserating with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone. They will both have a long day and be deprived of their dinner. However, I am afraid it cannot be helped. I shall try to be as quick as I can, though I shall not be able to cover all the points made by noble Lords. If I go much beyond 10 to 15 minutes, not only will my noble friend Lady Trumpington be upset but —even worse —I imagine that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip may have thoughts on the

1181
matter. I also wish to thank my noble kinsman Lord Russell for pointing out the small misprint in the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations,
"signed by authority of the Security of State".
I can assure the noble Earl that there are no sinister intentions whatsoever behind that. Since this is a draft statutory instrument I presume that the error will be corrected before it is signed by the authority of the "Security of State".
Turning to some of the points raised in the debate, I wish to start with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He claimed that social security expenditure was falling as a percentage of national income. I should remind the House that when the party opposite left office in 1979, social security expenditure formed only 9·5 per cent. of GDP. Next year it will form over 10 per cent. of GDP. That is an increase in the percentage of GDP. The noble Lord also said that the expenditure for all departments was increasing and that this department was no exception. I think that that was an uncharacteristically ungenerous response from the noble Lord to a total 36 per cent. real terms increase in social security expenditure since 1978–79. In any terms that is a massive increase in resources committed to this area. I should also say that social security has grown as a proportion of total public expenditure from 25 per cent. in 1978–79 to 30 per cent. in 1989–90.
Continuing on the subject of public expenditure, the noble Lord said that in the Government's public expenditure plans we have already provided for child benefit to be uprated in April 1990. This convention allows individual benefits to be considered on a comparable basis. The fact that estimates of future child benefit expenditure in the public expenditure White Paper allow for uprating in line with RPI cannot pre-empt the review of child benefit. The law requires the Secretary of State to carry out that review each year as part of the annual review of social security benefit rates, when he decides the level in the light of circumstances at the time.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not carry out a genuine review of child benefit. I can assure him that the contrary is true. He did what the law required him to do, which was to determine the level of child benefit in the light of all the circumstances at the time. As I made clear in my opening remarks, he had full regard to the rise in real incomes of many families where the head is working. I repeat that the changes which we are making from this April will bring a total of £350 million extra to families receiving family credit and income support in real terms since April 1988.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell asked why there was no increase in capital limits. We feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think that I must tell the House in all honesty that if there were money available to improve social security provision, I should be sceptical about proposals to extend the capital limits further at this stage. The House must be aware that the housing benefit capital limit was increased from £6,000 to £8,000 soon after the new
1182
scheme was introduced in April 1988. The capital limit was doubled to £6,000 under income support, compared with £3,000 under the old supplementary benefit.
As regards child benefit, I am not sure that I can go much further than what I said in my opening remarks. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, child benefit will continue to be paid as now, direct to the mother. As I have already said in answer to my noble kinsman Lord Russell, it will continue to be reviewed every year in the light of the existing circumstances. I do not think that I can go much further than what I have said.
I turn now to recoupment, which comes under the Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations 1990. Again I feel that it would not be productive in the short time we have available this evening to reopen the whole debate. However, I should say a few words on the size of the figure—£2,500. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who suggested £5,000.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, it was the Brutish Insurance Association which suggested that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, presumably the noble Lord endorsed the £5,000. That was the figure put forward, as the noble Lord will know, in an Opposition amendment. I cannot remember whether or not it was in this House but certainly it was proposed in another place last year. My right honourable friend the Minister of State explained in Committee why such a high figure was unacceptable. It would exclude over half of all compensation claims and seriously undermine the principles that the compensator should meet his full liabilities.
The amendment envisaged that compensators would continue to offset benefits by 50 per cent. over the whole five years from the date of injury. While this is acceptable for genuinely small payments to save administration where there is only a small amount of benefit involved, it is not acceptable at the £5,000 level.
Again my noble kinsman queried the cumbersome administration of the recoupment scheme. We have kept the procedures as simple as possible. Officials have worked with the representatives of the compensators and others in the private sector to make the rules match what is already done. We are grateful for the help which the private sector has given very readily.
I turn now to abolition of REA, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised. I think he would accept that it is outside the scope of the debate on the regulations. An opportunity will arise on this, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on child benefit, at the Committee stage and presumably at other stages of the Bill when it comes to this House from another place.
Pensions were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Stoddart. One complaint was of a break in the link between earnings and the retirement pension, where we now uprate in line with the RPI, as I have said on many occasions. We do not accept that the link between pensions and earnings is the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. What

1183
matters most to pensioners is the value of their total income. The success of this Government's policies in protecting the value of pensions against rises in prices while encouraging the growth of other incomes is demonstrated by the 23 per cent. rise in average pensioners' total net incomes between 1979 and 1986.
The noble Lord also alleged that pensioners are becoming poorer and are not sharing in the increased prosperity of the nation. Between 1979 and 1986 the proportion of pensioners in the lowest one-fifth of national income distribution fell from 35 per cent. to 24 per cent. Moreover those pensioners in the lowest one-fifth of pensioner incomes experienced a real terms increase of 19 per cent. in their total net incomes. Last October the Government directed an extra £200 million a year to the less well off elderly and disabled pensioners through changes in the premium structure for income related benefits. Overall, around 2·5 million pensioners have benefited from these changes.
I turn now to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell and their comments on statutory sick pay regulations. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for the delay in obtaining a reply from my right honourable friend. I told my noble friend that I understand that my right honourable friend replied to that letter earlier today. Bearing in mind the problems of time, I do not wish to go through all the points that were raised by the CBI in the letter to my right honourable friend and my right honourable friend's reply to that body. However, I shall certainly make copies available to noble Lords if they want them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was also worried about employees who were excluded from occupational sick pay schemes because they were recent employees. We acknowledge that some employees will not have worked long enough to qualify for occupational sick pay. However, half the private sector schemes have no exclusion clause at all. I believe that in any event the incidence of sickness in the early weeks of a new job tends to be low. The noble Lord also asked about our future plans on statutory sick pay. I can assure him that there are no plans at this stage to make further changes to statutory sick pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we had rejected the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendations. In his response to the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Secretary of State explained that the change in the earnings threshold to £125 merely restored the balance between the rates of SSP which applied when the scheme began in 1983. I believe I referred to that in my opening remarks. That is why the Government did not accept the committee's recommendations.
I have now been speaking for 12 minutes and I am well aware that there are many points that I have been unable to answer. However I undertake, as I always do, to read the Official Report carefully and to write to noble Lords to cover the points which they have raised and which I have not been able to
1184
cover. These measures reflect the success of our policies which we have achieved without placing an excessive burden on contributors or taxpayers. I commend the orders and regulations to the House en bloc.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he please send me a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Director-General of the CBI?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, I shall certainly make that letter available to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
8.34 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 14 [Selling food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 30, after ("nature") insert ("or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 44, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and to my own Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. My amendments arise out of amendments moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lucas and which the Government accepted in principle. They ensure that separate offences arise concerning the nature, substance or quality of food.
The amendments moved by the noble Lord were concerned with the sale of food to the prejudice of a purchaser and with the labelling of such food. We welcome these amendments, which remove any possible doubt as to the meaning of the relevant provisions. However, for the sake of consistency, we feel that it is better to make similar amendments to Clause 15(2), which refers to the advertising of food, and also to Clause 15(3), which deals with its presentation. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his proposal and I trust that your Lordships will be able to accept these amendments. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has the same effect as the first of my amendments. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I was asked to move Amendment No. 44, standing in my name. However I am now speaking to Amendment No. 43. I was asked to move the amendment by the John Lewis Waitrose Group because it was surprised to note the terms in which the clause was drafted. It effectively repeats provisions which were formerly contained in Section 2 of the Food Act 1984, with one significant drafting difference. That is that the former Section 2, which was drafted by the Law

1185
Commission —the 1984 Act was a consolidating Act —specifically moved away from its forerunner, Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, by making it clear that the words "nature, substance or quality" were to be interpreted disjunctively. That word is quite beyond my understanding but I believe it means what the noble Baroness has just stated. A deficiency in any one of those matters I have referred to was sufficient for the purpose of establishing an offence. Moreover, the 1984 Act Law Commission draft took cognisance of numerous High Court decisions. That was the reason for the wording of the amendment. However, to my lay eye, the amendment looked almost identical to the one moved by the Minister. If she can assure me that it is just as effective I shall be quite happy to follow her suggestion and not move Amendment No. 44 when the time comes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I give that assurance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Falsely describing or presenting food]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 47:
Page 11, line 41, after ("nature") insert ("or").
Page 12, line 1, after ("nature") insert ("or").
Page 12, line 6, after ("nature") insert ("or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of this section, a label or advertisement which is calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any food is calculated to mislead as to the quality of the food.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 15 penalises any person who by label or advertisement falsely describes food or is likely to mislead the public as to its nature, substance or quality. It does not, however, include within its ambit provisions presently contained in Section 6(4) of the equivalent section of the Food Act 1984, which deals with labels which mislead or are calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of food. The John Lewis Waitrose Group is concerned about any label which deliberately misleads people.
The matter was discussed to some extent at Committee stage. If the Minister can assure me that it is already covered, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that it is an important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like Thatcherite Conservatives, I am in favour of adults being encouraged to stand on their own feet. One could only wish that the Bill leant rather more in the direction of individual judgment and choice and rather less in the direction of paternalism. However, individual freedom of choice cannot be exercised
1186
usefully and intelligently without adequate information. Without it the consumer is at a great disadvantage vis-à-vis the producer.
The labelling of ingredients in food on grocers' shelves in this country has always seemed to me to be inadequate. There was, indeed, a time when it was perfectly legal to sell something described as "butter shortbread" which contained practically no butter whatever. Improvement in that respect is undoubtedly needed, even if the minutely detailed list of ingredients required by the well-known Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture—which anyone who has bought imported American food will know —goes too far in the opposite direction. Too much prepared packaged food in this country is still inadequately or misleadingly labelled. Therefore I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that things have moved on since he last looked on a grocer's shelves.
I am confident that Clause 15 is fully comprehensive and will clearly cover labelling or advertisements likely to mislead as to a food's nutritional or dietary value. I truly believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary.
As my noble friend will be aware, the matter was raised in Committee, and I am grateful for this opportunity to expand on what I said then. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984, to which I referred, do not spell out that the nutritional or dietary value of a food is an aspect of quality because they do not need to do so. However, the regulations contain specific rules on dietary and nutritional claims and the necessary powers to amend or expand the provisions of those regulations are included in the Bill. Those powers are wide enough to meet all my noble friend's concerns. I am sorry if my earlier remarks did not make that clear, but I believe that my noble friend has no cause for anxiety. I hope that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Food safety and consumer protection]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("(cc) provision for requiring the public display of information or labelling relating to the irradiation of any food").
The noble Lord said: The amendment raises an issue on which the Government conducted a consultation exercise in 1989. The irradiation of food raises important questions as to the provision to the public of information about the process at a time when such information may conflict with the commercial and marketing attractiveness of the product in question.
A particular concern has revolved round goods for sale and public display and particularly as to

1187
restaurant menus, it is understood that the Government's current position is that a restaurant menu should contain a general statement that some of the ingredients used in foods have been irradiated and that it is not proposed that individual dishes should be so labelled.
In a European context, your Lordships' Select Committee in its recent report did not like the proposed Community logo. Do Her Majesty's Government contemplate a United Kingdom logo? If so, where will it be displayed?
We have tabled the amendment to enable the Government to explain their current thinking on the issue and their proposals as to the next steps in the labelling issue given that those matters are relevant to the powers to introduce irradiation being taken under Clause 16. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that his amendment is unnecessary. Clause 16(1)(e) already gives Ministers wide powers in respect of labelling, including the labelling of irradiated food. There is thus no need to make specific provision.
Amendments were agreed last year to the European Community labelling directive which specifically require that the label of an irradiated foodstuff shall carry the words "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation". Similar rules would apply to listed ingredients. Although those EC rules do not apply to pre-packed foodstuffs we have made it clear that we would extend our requirements into that area.
There are particular practical difficulties which need to be addressed in such areas as mixtures of food which are sold loose or in catering, which includes restaurants. We are currently consulting with interested parties on the most effective way of presenting the information so that consumers can be fully informed and thus exercise proper freedom of choice. We shall be making the appropriate regulations. However, we can already take such action either under existing legislation or under the powers proposed in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will accept that the issue is already well provided for and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The amendment was in the nature of a probing amendment. It has elicited some useful information from the noble Baroness which will be studied. In so far as it tells me something that I did not already know I am grateful. I am sure that those who asked us to put down the amendment will be equally grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, line 34, leave out second ("or") and insert ("including in particular provision for prohibiting or regulating").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 50 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 59, 119, 120 and 121. They are all technical amendments designed to clarify various regulation-making powers in the Bill. As your Lordships know, it is very much an enabling Bill, designed to provide a framework to cater for all eventualities, foreseen and unforeseen. I can assure your Lordships that the amendments do not represent a change of policy on the Government's part. We are simply trying to make sure that the enabling powers are cast as widely as we always intended so that there is no room for doubt. We do not want to be caught out and unable to act if events suddenly take an unexpected turn, as they certainly could.
Amendments Nos. 50, 55 and 59 will ensure that if necessary Ministers can make regulations to prohibit commercial operations in relation to food, food sources or contact materials. The Bill already provides powers to regulate commercial operations, but there could be circumstances in which it would be in the interests of consumers to prohibit sales altogether. For example, we might need to prohibit production while safety tests were being carried out or we might want to ban the sale of animal products which might carry a risk of disease. Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 apply to the general regulation-making power in Clause 16 and Amendment No. 59 to the power under Clause 17 to make regulations implementing European Community obligations.
Amendment No. 55 also clarifies that Ministers can make regulations to provide controls on material that comes into contact with food to ensure that it is hygienic and to regulate its labelling or advertising. That might be necessary, for example, to ensure that coffee filter papers or cling film meet proper standards of hygiene and are properly labelled.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 clear up a potential anomaly in the controls that can be applied to animals, crops and other food sources. As drafted, the Bill allows regulations to prohibit the sale or use for human consumption of products from diseased animals or crops. The amendment makes it clear that the same applies to animals or crops liable to be suffering from any specified disease, such as tuberculosis or foot and mouth. Your Lordships may be interested to note that similar powers in respect of milk are already available in Section 35 of the Food Act 1984. Details of any regulations that we might make would be subject to public consultation.
Amendment No. 121 allows Ministers to make regulations giving enforcement officers powers to inspect and deal with food sources suspected of not complying with requirements. Sections 13 and 33 of the Food Act 1984 already provide similar powers in respect of live animals but the amendment would extend the power to all food sources including crops. Regulations could provide for enforcement officers to inspect live animals or growing crops to ensure that they or any food to be derived from them comply with regulations giving enforcement officers powers to deal with food sources that do not comply. They could prevent the slaughter of animals or the harvesting of crops until requirements were met

1189
and they could, if necessary, require animals to be detained on the farm. So, for example, if an animal contained veterinary residues above specified limits it could be kept until the residue had reduced to an acceptable level.
I hope that your Lordships will agree to the amendments which, I believe, provide a great many useful clarifications. Perhaps I may once again remind noble Lords that in all cases any regulations made would be subject to public consultation.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley will wish to speak to his Amendments No. 56 and 57 which are grouped with these. I hope that in view of my explanation noble Lords will agree to withdraw that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Baldwin Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert —
("( ) No regulations under subsection (1)(c) above permitting the irradiation of food shall be made for a period of three years from the passing of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the substance of the matter of food irradiation. There is no need to delve into all the arguments again; it will be enough to summarise them. Before I do, I should like to say how sad I am that there appears no possibility of a meeting of minds with the Minister on this issue. I read a headline in last Tuesday's Independent which said, quoting a Conservative MP:
"Margaret Thatcher is convinced that anyone who disagrees with her is either a fool or a knave".
Those of us who are unhappy about irradiation have the feeling of being confronted by that kind of attitude. When the Secretary of State himself is on record as seeing it as his job to "stamp on" —those were his words —those who hold different views about food safety, it is not surprising that the debate becomes shriller than it need be. I shall try not to be too confrontational, but it is not always easy.
There are a number of concerns about irradiation, such as vitamin loss, which are not immediately relevant to the amendment, so I shall not repeat them. I must admit that I found it a difficult amendment to frame. My chief concern remains that of safety. I accept that the detailed terms of our amendment in Committee were not ideal. I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, (Amendment No. 52) but, although it is better than nothing, it seems to me to be in effect abdicating one's judgment on safety matters to other people.
I have opted for the measure upon which Australia recently decided. I quoted from the Australian House of Representatives' report in our debate on your Lordships' Select Committee report which we considered last Monday because it seemed to me the best statement on the current state of play in respect of matters of safety. The conclusion to that report, after a thorough examination of the evidence, was that, although the majority of studies suggested that
1190
eating irradiated food would do no harm, not all of them appeared to be reliable; a number of others indicated that it might be hazardous; there had been methodological problems in the safety trials; and further work had been recommended by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation. As a result of that, a three-year moratorium is now in force in Australia and the World Health Organisation has been asked to do more work on the safety aspects. That should provide a breathing space during which, among other things, the database in Karlsruhe to which I referred last week could be brought into some semblance of order; the evidence to date could be properly referenced and reviewed by anyone who wished to review it; and suspicions, if groundless, could be allayed, if need be by further trials.
I must now, alas, be confrontational on an issue on which I do not believe the noble Baroness has listened to us at all. Of the several committees that I quoted last week which are not convinced of the safety of food irradiation up to 10 kilograys, half were expert or technical bodies. I shall mention them again: the committee which reported to the Canadian Parliament in 1987; the American FDA; and the British Medical Association's Board of Science. It is an important point because the noble Baroness continues to stress that that is the only type of committee that one should take seriously.
Yet I would query even that assumption for two reasons. First, the parliamentary or other committees have, after all, access to the full range of scientific findings from all over the world and they question the scientists about their reports and compare expert with expert. They have all the scientific information and, in addition, they bring a wider perspective to bear on the issue. One might say that the scientists, where they do their job properly, provide the cleverness, and the broader committees, where they do their job properly, provide the wisdom. In the last analysis it is not for the experts to make the policy decisions.
That is just as well because my second reason is that the experts make such howling mistakes. If one wants to know why people are less and less inclined to take assurances of safety on trust, one has only to look at the track record of the experts. I have here in my hand a whole list of food substances which we were assured at one time were safe but which have now been banned because of the risks attached to them. Noble Lords have only to look at DDT, which used to be so widely recommended, and at lead in petrol. In 1980 the Lawther Committee was quite relaxed about it, and people in this country and abroad who continued to point to the evidence of harm were dismissed as cranks and scaremongers. As recently as 1982, a year after the Government's Chief Medical Officer had sounded a warning, an environment Minister said of some recent trials:
"Taken as a whole, the results reinforce the Government's view that levels of lead pollution in the environment give no cause for alarm".
It is one of the most noticeable features of the environmental scene, particularly in this country, that the scientific experts promote substances and techniques which later turn out to be unsafe. That is not always so, of course, but it occurs often enough

1191
to raise serious questions of judgment. It is like the accountants who cost projects such as Concorde, the Humber Bridge or the Channel Tunnel. We know that they will get it wrong by a mile, but next time they do it again, quite undaunted.
When scientists ask us once again to accept a process about which a sufficient number of people still have doubts to ring quite genuine warning bells, when they ask us to accept their largely unreferenced reports and when they do not tell us that their major database is in disarray for lack of cash, we are right to pause and to point out that a major health issue could be at stake and that it would be wise to resolve all the outstanding issues first. Whatever the noble Baroness may claim, there are outstanding issues. The trouble often arises in these cases through medical or political enthusiasm —the perfectly understandable desire to benefit people's health and to be seen to make a difference which can lead, especially when the pressure is on, to the shading of safety requirements.
It is time that we learnt the lesson of our mistakes of the past. In the present context a pause of three years is a sensible one to ask for; indeed, I believe that it is essential. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, although I cannot support the noble Earl's amendment in the way that it is framed, I agree with a great deal of what he says to support the amendment. We have had many opportunities in this House to discuss the process of irradiation. Unusually, a Select Committee of the House was set up to study irradiation between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Much information has been given to us from those who took part in the debate on the Select Committee report.
It is quite clear that there are consumers who take an interest in food and food processes, particularly new food processes. There is a great deal of unease about the irradiation of food. That is not to say that most people think that it is unsafe. Various statements have been made by those who support the introduction of irradiation of food. Some say that it is absolutely safe, some that it is quite safe, some that it is entirely safe. There are even those who say that it is safe. Those statements raise certain anxieties in the minds of those who will buy those foods. People who decide not to buy them may be exposed to irradiated food when it is allowed to be sold in this country.
I disagree with the amendment of the noble Earl because what he is proposing by way of a three-year moratorium is going away from the path that we should be following, which is to act in concert with the other countries in the European Community. To follow the Australian example of a three-year moratorium would in a way be alarmist. Those of us who raise fears about this process have been accused of being alarmist, political and of being cranks. That is all water off a duck's back so far as I am concerned. However. I think that one has an obligation to the people of this country who have said through letters to the press, radio and television that they are not satisfied that it is safe to introduce this process, as proposed by the Government.
1192
I should prefer that the Government waited to see what was going to happen in other European countries, but we will discuss that topic later. I have enormous sympathy for the noble Earl but I cannot go down the path that he is traversing.
9 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am in favour of proceeding with irradiated food. It will not only be beneficial as a means of preserving food in this country, but when it has been tried, tested and used here regularly, it will eventually be of enormous benefit to people in the third world where so much grain deteriorates due to fungal infection. The grain could be preserved and eaten by people who would otherwise be starving.
I am so used to using gamma irradated equipment in my surgery that I do not have any hesitation about this process. I feel that people confuse radioactive substances with irradiated substances.
I am impressed by the proposition that there should be freedom of choice. People who do not wish to buy irradiated food should be able to make the choice, in the same way that people can choose to buy food that is organically grown. Whatever food one is buying, one should have a choice. However, I do not favour this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Falkland. I was on the sub-committee that considered this matter. The report of that committee was debated the other night. All fears that I had about radioactive dangers to the public have been totally laid to rest. At the same time, the experts at our own scientific institute said that not nearly enough work had been done on the effects on various foodstuffs. That is why we need to proceed with a certain amount of caution. There is no shadow of doubt in my mind that it is a good thing to irradiate spices. They are apparently produced in the most filthy surroundings that one could imagine. The chemical which has been used until now is very suspect.
Three years is an arbitrary figure which must be wrong when one takes into account the pace of scientific research. We should proceed in pace with our European partners. If we do not do so, many things will be out of step. If we have different regulations from the EC in 1992, then we will get into a mess. I have no objection to the Government producing the enabling legislation, but I have a great objection to them getting out of step with Europe, which this Government are rather apt to do. I think that to impose an arbitrary figure is quite wrong. Co-operation with Europe is not only desirable, it is essential; otherwise the regulations, the legislation and the labelling will go wrong.
I think that my noble friend's next amendment is the important and desirable one. However, I am very doubtful as to whether it should be discussed at this time of night. I am against this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, presumably the effect of the noble Earl's amendment is that we will only agree with what Europe does in the next

1193
three years if we are not going to have irradiation of foodstuffs. If the European Community decide in the next year or two that irradiation of the products in the draft directive, etc., should be allowed, we would not be able to go along with that. Therefore we would be just as non-European as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is suggesting if we got off the ground first.
If the noble Earl is so alarmed by irradiation and does not want it at all, he should say so. He should be saying so to the European Community, by whatever means. To say that we will not implement the process for three years is not a good idea when a draft directive is on the table. I do not think that we should go along with that position.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, mother earth is not a very safe place on which to live: it has earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes etc. Among other things, we are all radioactive. The biggest dose that I am getting at the moment is from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. Tit for tat, he is getting it from me. We all get it from one another. Nothing dare, nothing do. We cannot perpetually put off decisions. Every year 5,000 people die on the roads, 5,000 people die in industrial accidents and 10,000 die in domestic accidents. I do not believe that any source of irradiation is likely to produce that result.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we debated food irradiation at length on Second Reading, in Committee and in our recent debate on the sub-committee's report on the irradiation of foodstuffs. I am therefore familiar with the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. He in turn will know that the Government cannot accept the amendment; but I make no apology for repeating why the Government have concluded that food irradiation is safe and why we believe that it offers real public health benefits and should be permitted.
I listened to the noble Earl with great respect, even if he believes that I do not. However, I have to say that he castigates the scientific opinion of those who do not share his views and then quotes at me scientific opinion in his favour. For instance, he quoted the BMA. Perhaps I may in return quote back to him what was said in evidence by the Medical Research Council when it appeared before the sub-committee. I said that the public health implications of that approach were substantial, particularly in the case of poultry meat which at present is a major source of salmonella.
Food irradiation is the most extensively researched food process ever. It is found to be safe by expert scientific committees from the WHO, the FAO, the United States FDA and by all the international scientific committees which have considered it. That includes, of course, our own expert committee (the Advisory Committee on Irradiation and Novel Foods) which between 1982 and 1986 reviewed the evidence, taking advice from a number of our specialist expert committees on matters such as toxicology and nutrition. As I have said previously, the process is approved in 35 countries and is in commercial use in 20. The 13
1194
members of Sub-Committee D from all sides of the House who had the opportunity to take evidence from many quarters reached the same conclusion in their excellent report. They, like the Government, concluded that food irradiated up to a maximum dose was safe and wholesome.
Many spectres against irradiation have been raised in the course of our debate. We have heard some this evening. None of the issues are new. They have all been carefully considered by distinguished and independent committees. No credible evidence of adverse effects has been produced. With the noble Earl's approach, no new process would ever be approved.
In the recent "Horizon" television programme on food irradiation Professor Diehl from West Germany, an acknowledged world expert on the subject, was pressed on the question of demonstrating the absolute certainty that irradiation was safe. He responded by using the analogy of looking for ghosts. One can do as many experiments as one likes and never find anything, but one can never prove that they do not exist.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister allow me—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, I think not. Time is going by. I have made it clear previously that our research programme on food irradiation will continue, but I believe that we have reached the point where we should stop looking for ghosts and proceed with introducing a process that offers real public health benefits.
The noble Earl once again referred to the Australian moratorium. As we discussed in Committee, the Australian circumstances were different. The decisions there was based on a parliamentary report rather than the recommendations of a scientific committee. In essence therefore it was a political decision. The Government, on the other hand, have accepted the great weight of scientific evidence in support of the safety of the process and concluded that consumers should be able to benefit from the improvement in food safety that irradiation can offer. Those benefits are real. Irradiation is particularly effective in killing salmonella, campylobacter and listeria. That means that it has a valuable part to play in combating the bacteria responsible for no less than 90 per cent. of the world's food borne illness. The WHO advises consumers to choose irradiated poultry meat where that is available. The Government are acting to make that choice available for our consumers. We are merely providing an additional option. No one need eat irradiated food unless they choose to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that we should not go ahead of the EC. I went all through that argument in Committee. If the noble Lord had read what I then said he would know the arguments. I shall therefore refrain from repeating them. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment and that your Lordships are convinced by my arguments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she accepts the reservations of Sub-Committee D on the effects on food? We totally accepted that irradiation would not produce any radioactivity effects, but we were entirely unsure of the effects on food and we thought there should be much more research on the effects.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have always maintained that research will continue. If the noble Lord had happened to read properly what was said at Committee stage he would have had that question already answered for him.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful for the limited support that I have received from the Benches opposite, although obviously it did not go as far as I would have liked. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, talked about the needs of the third world. There may well be a case there for food spoilage, but I myself object to being a guinea-pig in respect of what happens in the third world. If they want it there, by all means let them use it, but in my view we are arguing about this country and about what we do to our own people. That is a different point. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that if I was alarmed by it I should say so. I thought I had been saying so, rather like a gramophone record, for three of four weeks. My point was that not enough work had been done and that one was right to be alarmed about these things until the safety issues had been tidied up. We should not undertake research as we go along, as the noble Baroness suggested, but should do it beforehand and get it right first.
I am of course disappointed that, after a number of attempts to draw to the Minister's attention the worries of a large section of society, we seem to have made no progress. I do not want to pick up all the points made by the Minister because we shall then get into this "Yes I do, no you don't" argument that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred to earlier. He quite rightly steered clear of that: it is unproductive.
There is much more that I could say but at this stage and at this time of the evening I am bowing to the inevitable. I would just ask the Minister to accept that it has not been part of my aim, at any rate, to raise people's anxieties but rather to stave off yet another environmental error of the type we are all too prone to in this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert
("( ) No regulations under subsection (1)(c) above authorising the irradiation of food shall be made before the draft Directive on food and food ingedients treated with ionising radiation has been adopted by the Council of Ministers.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise for any inconvenience that may be caused by seeking to ungroup these three amendments. I have informed the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches. I do not intend to
1196
move Amendment No. 52 but it may perhaps be acceptable for me to talk to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 at the appropriate time.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert—
("(1A) The Minister or Secretary of State shall certify, in making any regulations made under subsections (1)(b) to (d) above in respect of the irradiation of food, that they conform so far as practicable to international standards of good manufacturing and agricultural practice and of generally applicable microbiological standards where developed")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to issues which we discussed in connection with Amendment No. 73 in Committee. That amendment drew attention to the principal recommendations of the World Health Organisation's international consultative group on food irradiation which were published in June 1989. The World Health Organisation recommended, as I indicated at col. 776 on 18th January 1990:
"Only foods produced under conditions of good agricultural and manufacturing practices … should be accepted for further processing, including irradiation. Further processing should not be used to disguise the consequences of poor hygiene.
"Microbiological guidelines should not be used as limits for regulatory action. Failure to meet such guidelines should direct attention to the manufacturing process and the establishing if necessary, of GMP."
In reply to the amendment, the noble Baroness indicated that she did not consider that the adoption of clear criteria for the use of the regulation power in Clause 16 was necessary. She said at col. 777 of the Official Report on 18th January 1990:
"Food for irradiation will have to comply with normal hygienic rules. In addition, we will require appropriate microbiological testing to ensure that it is of sound quality".
This amendment asks the Government to take on a general intention that, as international standards are established, regulations in this country should reflect those standards. In particular, the Minister drew attention to the finding of your Lordships' Select Committee that microbiological standards were not generally applicable at present and that general quality standards currently applied in other forms of food processing were the best means of ensuring that irradiated foods were of sound and good quality. The amendment accepts the logic of the Government's argument that detailed standards cannot in all cases be set at this stage, but asks them to accept that standards should be upgraded as international technology develops. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher —I may have missed it —was he also speaking to Amendment No. 54? They are grouped together.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I was not speaking to Amendment No. 54. The grouping that took place after I approved the list of grouping that I saw this morning is inappropriate. I have therefore moved Amendment No. 53. When we reach Amendment No. 54, I shall make a short speech in moving that amendment also.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. At Committee stage we debated the question of ensuring that the irradiation process is not abused. I said then —and I shall repeat it —that the Government will not allow irradiation to be used as a substitute for good manufacturing practice or as a means of upgrading unfit food. However, I do not believe that the amendment is helpful in this respect. The fundamental problem is that there are as yet no internationally agreed standards of good manufacturing and agricultural practice or microbiological standards for food for irradiation. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, indicated at Committee stage, the World Health Organisation has begun some useful work in this area of microbiological standards. But there are still many considerable practical difficulties to be resolved. I do not see how the Government could agree now to commit themselves to standards which have yet to be set.
There is a further point. The amendment assumes that any future standards for good manufacturing or agricultural practice should be embodied in regulations. But such standards are often more appropriate for codes of practice than for regulations. In short, although I can sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, I do not find it very practical. I note that the 35 countries that permit the use of this process have been happy to do so in advance of any agreement on microbiological standards that it might subsequently be possible to reach. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said on this important subject. I believe that the reference to the international consultative group of the World Health Organisation, to which I referred in moving the amendment, is entirely appropriate. I am partially reassured by the indication of the noble Baroness that the Government are conscious of the desirability of maintenance of standards but feel that these would be better taken care of in a code rather than in regulations.
I also noted that in reply to the preceding amendments she indicated that research on irradiation would continue. I hope that the basis of that research will be sufficiently broad to take account of the quality of food and the maintenance of microbiological standards as part of the irradiation scene. Having said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert —
("(1A) Any regulations made under subsection (1)(b) or (c) above in respect of the irradiation of food shall be concerned with the fitness of food before or after such treatment, and the licensing of radiological processes shall be undertaken by an independent person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with separating the effect of irradiation from the quality of food submitted for such treatment. We argue that the licensing of radiological
1198
processes necessary for irradiation should be undertaken by an independent person. We ask the Government to give views on these issues.
It has been evident from the debate on this issue that much of the concern about irradiation arises from its ability to disguise poor quality food, or food which has deteriorated, to prolong its life at the point of sale. For this purpose, regulations concerning food safety and the fitness of food are appropriate and may be made under powers contained in Clause 16. The amendment argues, however, that the issues concerned with licensing of radiological processes are larger than the scope of regulations likely to be put forward under the Bill. We ask the Government to state what proposals they will put forward to secure an independent oversight of the equipment and technology used in this area. We ask them to state whether any organisation such as the National Radiological Protection Board has been approached or asked to consider taking on this function. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. In discussion on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord I dealt with the question of microbiological standards prior to irradiation. Therefore, my remarks are directed to the question of standards after irradiation. I remind the House that the Government are committed to a comprehensive range of licensing controls which will be imposed on the processor in order to ensure that treated foods are safe and wholesome. The key provisions of the framework that we envisaged are: a product specific, plant specific licence to irradiate; the inspection of facilities by experts before and regularly after the issue of a licence; and access for inspectors to the detailed records of dosimetry, which will be required to be maintained at the plant, in order to confirm that treatment has been correctly applied.
Furthermore, environmental health officers will continue with their normal food inspection role, including appropriate testing of foods after processing. Finally, irradiated food will be subject to the full food safety provisions of the Bill.
As regards the licensing of food irradiation, I find quite extraordinary the noble Lord's suggestion that one single power in a substantial Bill should not be exercised by enforcement authorities. I appreciate that evaluation of the safety of radiobiological processes should be a matter on which independent expert advice is taken by government. Indeed, that is precisely what we did in setting up our Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. However, licensing is essentially an executive function; it is a matter of checking that a particular plant meets the necessary standard. I see no reason for that function to be placed in independent hands.
In its excellent report the Select Committee noted that already we have 10 irradiation plants in the United Kingdom treating a range of medical and domestic products. The registration and inspection of those plants is undertaken by central government. We intend to proceed similarly with food irradiation facilities.

1199
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but I am not altogether reasssured by it. For example, she made a reference to "experts" but gave no indication of who they will be; whether they will be invited in their individual capacities or as experts because they are currently employed in organisations which have recognised expertise in the area.
There is a great deal of difference between the examination and inspection of the existing plants —and I have yet to discover whether, as they now stand, the existing plants are capable of irradiating food under the powers which the Minister intends taking under Clause 16. As the Minister indicated, their range of function is more limited than that which will rise when food for human consumption is being irradiated.
The idea that the licensing function must be part of a government job is not borne out by a whole host of cases where governments have delegated licensing functions over a wide area. At this time of night I do not propose to embark on a recital of where and what they are. Suffice it to say that it is common for governments to delegate that responsibility. It was the delegation of such responsibility to an impartial body —I mention the National Radiological Protection Board —which is at the heart of the amendment.
I have the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that in their determination to move ahead with this particular exercise the Government are prepared to cut corners. In my opinion, cutting corners does not constitute sound policy in an area where controversy reigns supreme, as undoubtedly it does in this sphere. However, the Minister has made her comments and I have taken note of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved manuscript Amendment No. 54A:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert —
("( ) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that any meat product incorporating a gel containing blood enzymes must be clearly labelled with the words "Artifically Restructured Meat".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first apologise to the House for having tabled a manuscript amendment this morning but it arose out of a matter which only came to my attention over the weekend. I must also apologise to the Minister and, indeed, to her officials for the fact that they were not advised this morning as I had arranged for them to be. That does not help me any more than it helps the Minister.
As I say, this matter arose out of something which came to my attention over the weekend in an article in the Guardian on Saturday, 10th February. The article was by Mr. James Erlichman, the consumer affairs correspondent. He wrote:
1200
"A blood gel developed to bind wounds in casualty wards is being used to turn meat scraps into 'steak'. Several British meat companies are understood to have successfully tested the process which has come from Holland. Meat scraps left in the gel reassemble in 12 hours and can be sold either in fresh slab form or cut up and cooked in prepared meat products. The Ministry of Agriculture said that it has no objection to the blood gel meat being on sale,"—
and I understand that situation—
"although they say it must be labelled 'to ensure that consumers are adequately informed of their true nature and means of production'".
That is what this amendment is about; namely, to ensure precisely that. The article continues:
"Whitehall sources suggest, however" —
and I do not know who they are—
"that adequate labelling is unlikely. The meat industry, fearing consumer resistance".—
and I can understand why that should be so —
"is likely to argue that disclosure is unnecessary because all the blood gel components are found naturally in the flesh of animals".
I am sorry to deal with this matter immediately after supper.
This is obviously a method of selling scraps at inflated prices. I have here a quotation from the Meat Trades Journal of 19th October 1989 which is headed:
"Gel to bind meat trimmings developed in Holland".
The article reads:
"The revolutionary idea, uses a gel containing enzymes from blood to bind together trimmings to create a uniform product that has almost identical visual properties to fresh meat and can be handled and prepared in the same way as normal meat. The inventors at the Dutch Institute of Meat Technology claim that the materials will add 30 pence kg, but will allow butchers to boost their profits on the meat used by 50 per cent. The Institute have developed a kit which will allow the process to be carried out in the shop, bringing meat restructuring into small scale manufacturing for the first time".
I am glad to see that the chairman of the Refreshment Committee is sitting in his place.
The article continues:
The institute anticipate a take up of the process with large scale manufacturers".
The institute's head of meat technology Ernest Paardekooper said:
"A potential obstacle to the commercial application of the new binding process could be consumer resistance to the use of blood products although these are perfectly safe if only fresh meat is used. Our biggest problem will be finding a new name to label products from this new process".
My amendment assists in that process. They should be called, in my view, "Artificially Restructured Meat".
Mr. Paardekooper is also quoted in the Guardian article to which I referred proviously:
"He said yesterday that natural clotting agents in the blood, including fibrinogen and thrombin, create a mesh-like structure which enables wounds to close … Mr. Paardekooper said that his remoulded meat closely resembled fresh steak."
I have no objection to eating black puddings; indeed, I was born within 12 or 15 miles of Bury, Lancashire, where the best black puddings in the world come from. However, when I am buying steak I do not want to buy black puddings. I am not suggesting that these are precisely like black puddings, but there is a certain similarity. However, I want to be able to

1201
tell which is which, especially if it is served to me in a restaurant. What a temptation this must be to a restaurateur. It will only be possible to tell this meat from steak sold in the normal way if it is properly labelled.
Mr. Maclean, the honourable gentleman in another place in the department of the noble Baroness, said in a Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Truro:
"Meat products offered for sale have to comply with the provisions of the Food Act 1984, the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984. Meat products made using the techniques mentioned would have to be carefully labelled so as to ensure that consumers are adequately informed of their true nature". —[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/90; col. 217.]
That ties up to a degree with what the noble Baroness said in reply to my noble friend Lord Falkland in the Committee stage of the Bill when he spoke about mechanically recovered meat. She said:
"In any case it is not possible for the UK unilaterally to introduce specific labelling rules on MRM since food labelling legislation is harmonised throughout the European Community". —[Official Report, 18/1/90; col. 758.]
However, I understand again from the Guardian article that the Dutch authorities insisted on labelled declarations for retail sale in the shops of this product. The noble Baroness, again at col. 758, went on to say:
"the food labelling regulations require precise names to be given both to the food and to the food ingredients to enable them to be distinguished from products with which they might be confused".
Again I suggest that the amendment offers a certain amount of help in that direction. What I am really saying is that people must know what they are buying. Once again it is the cowboy we are frightened of and not the genuine retailer or wholesaler.
I wonder whether the food labelling regulations cover this new product and I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether they do. In any case one wonders if the present law is working properly. It is true that in July 1989 Mr. Bernard Matthews —of whom people will doubtless have heard through his television adverts —and his company were fined for not labelling mechanically recovered meat. He subsequently labelled his meat appropriately and is continuing to do so. Others, however, are continuing not to label properly and the only way trading standards officers can enforce the law is to prosecute on a regular basis. That is a slow and tedious way of doing it and I wonder whether the Government are satisfied with that mechanism.
I understand that negotiations are continuing between trading standards officers and meat traders, but so far no agreement has been reached. I should be glad to know from the Minister at some stage whether any progress is being made on this subject.
I have included in the amendment a suggested label, which was coined by my honourable friend in another place, of "Artificially Restructured Meat". I personally believe it should be called "bits of meat glued together with blood plasma", so that people really understand what they are buying. However, the product must be clearly labelled and not with euphemisms like the recent inclusion of the words
1202
"meat tenderiser" when one means that enzymes have been injected into the beast before it is slaughtered. I do not believe that the answer to my noble friend Lord Falkland given in Committee adequately covers this new phenomenon. There must be some way of including more specific provisions than those in Clause 15(1). They should be included in the regulations made under Clause 16.
I recognise that the noble Baroness has not had time fully to consider this. I believe it to be a serious matter. I do not intend to press the amendment to the limit tonight. But I hope that she can find some way of looking at it in perhaps a little more depth than I have given her time to do. I apologise for the short notice, but it only came over the horizon on Saturday as far as I am concerned. It is a serious matter which should go on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I indicated when speaking in favour of Amendment No. 48, I believe that the public have an absolute right not be cheated. In other words they have an absolute right not to be deceived into buying food or anything else which is not what it appears to be. Therefore I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Baroness rises to reply, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whether the word "artificially" is otiose. Can he give me an example of naturally restructured meat?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I pose a question either to the Minister or to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Is the blood species specific? The noble Lord referred to animal blood. It is extremely important to know the answer. One assumes that it is the blood of cattle which is used to reconstruct the steak. In view of all the scares that are around at the moment it is important to know whether the blood is species specific.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given me an entirely new perception of the expression Dutch treat. The whole matter has come to me as a very nasty shock. I appreciate very much the noble Lord's apology.
I believe that this kind of detail is not appropriate to the Bill. The technique to which the amendment refers has recently been developed abroad, as the noble Lord said, but I have no information as to whether it is used in the UK. Labelling rules already require that where a foodstuff has been subjected to any particular process, the omission of which might mislead the consumer, details of that process should be included in the labelling of the product. The use of this substance will also have to appear in the ingredients list of any meat product.
I venture to suggest that if a restaurateur sold this product as steak he would be falling foul of the law. I hazard a fairly firm guess on that score. I am not sufficiently familiar with the process to say whether the description which the noble Lord has put into the amendment is proper for the production or

1203
sufficiently informative to consumers. I have some doubts about that. I am also slightly doubtful about believing absolutely everything that the Guardian says.
The EC labelling rules do not allow us to impose extra labelling requirements without first submitting them to Brussels for discussion and agreement by member states. That is a further reason why I cannot accept this amendment. I believe this to be a technical matter which is better fully discussed by the appropriate technical experts before any legislation about it is proposed or considered.
I would be happy to talk about the matter with the noble Lord at any time—preferably not just after dinner —so that we could take up the matter elsewhere if the need arose. Otherwise, one will be dealing with soya cutlets and heaven knows what before one knows where one is. The matter is too detailed for the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for some glimmer of hope in her reply. Having been weaned on the Guardian, I am less cynical about it than she is. On this occasion the Guardian, is probably right. When I read this against the quotation from the Meat Trade Journal, I think that factually the Guardian is correct on this occasion.
I am happy to meet the noble Baroness at any time, not necessarily to talk about ghastly things like this. There is something different here. We are not just talking about products which are adulterated with cereals, bone or something like that. It is clearly a genuine attempt by the manufacturers to make something look like something that it is not. Because of that, I am highly suspicious of it.
I hear what the noble Baroness says on the labelling question in relation to the European Community, but apparently the Dutch have got around this. The Dutch are insisting on their restaurateurs using special labels. I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, says about tautology but I do not stand by the absolute wording of the amendment. I would much prefer it to be clearer to consumers that they are being offered a very strange product.
Clearly I shall not press the amendment tonight. I hope that the Minister, her colleagues and her officials will look more deeply into the matter. It is a matter of considerable concern that the public will be offered something which is not what it is seeking to buy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 12, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 46 and insert —

("(a) for securing the observance of hygienic conditions and practices in connection with the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to contact materials which are intended to come into contact with food intended for human consumption;

(b) for imposing requirements or prohibitions as to, or otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking or advertising
1204
of such materials, and the descriptions which may be applied to them; and

(c) otherwise for prohibiting or regulating the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to such materials.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 13, line 4, at end insert—
("(4A) Before making any regulations under this section authorising the irradiation of food, the Ministers shall have particular regard to any representations made to them in consulting affected interests under section 26 concerning the effects of irradiation on the appearance of agricultural or horticultural produce.
(4B) Before making any regulations under this section concerning the sale of food by food businesses, the Ministers shall have regard to the extent to which, in their opinion, it would be practicable for food businesses to make detailed declarations of the sources of food and any processes to which it as been subjected.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised a similar point in Committee and quoted the example of mushroooms, though the principle of appearance or lack of appearance because of irradiation could apply to other vegetables. My noble friend replied sympathetically but my horticultural advisers who have looked at her answer are still concerned that appearance and freshness are vitally important to their selling and promoting fresh vegetables. They would like an assurance from my noble friend that this point will be taken into account before regulations are made.
They are concerned in this context with the appearance angle. With mushrooms, there is a discolouration problem. Indeed my noble friend was kind enough to write to me after the Committee stage to admit that this was so. She also stated that producers would not have to use irradiation if they did not want to. But as 85 per cent. of mushrooms are sold loose, irradiated mushrooms could well be included by accident or by an unscrupulous trader who might be short of mushrooms on that day. I hope therefore that my noble friend can give an assurance, first, that appearance will be taken into consideration before irradiation is allowed; secondly, that no irradiated vegetable will ever be described as fresh; and, thirdly, that irradiated produce will always be sold in sealed and clearly marked containers.
If my noble friend can answer those three points in the affirmative, I shall certainly be perfectly happy. However, I shall leave to my noble friend Lord Montgomery the task of defining how such provisions should be enforced. I beg to move.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Stanley, I should like to approach the problem from a slightly different angle. The matter was raised in Committee and my noble friend on the Front Bench responded, as always, with great courtesy. She was kind enough to write to me after the debate. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, her reply, courteous though it was, did not entirely answer the question.

1205
I should like to narrow the matter down a little this evening to deal with the issue of the labelling of products as it affects people in restaurants. Of course consumers need to be protected. However, most of the protection for consumers in this legislation has been directed towards the retail trade and has not been concerned with precisely what may or may not happen in restaurants. There has been a good deal of reference this evening to products in restaurants and what happens to them. Indeed, this was referred to when we discussed Amendment No. 54A, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. When one is in a restaurant one has to take a good deal on trust. The important factors are appearance and taste; indeed, they are of overriding importance. Of course, the other aspect is safety.
I have a particular concern as regards the Select Committee's report on irradiation. The noble Baroness has referred to this several times today. However, such reports tend to be thought of as being somewhat "gospel". Paragraph 124 recommends that:
"menus should state which dishes contain irradiated ingredients".
I know that the noble Baroness is concerned about the protection of consumers —and that is totally plausible —as is the restaurant industry. But the ingredients currently used in restaurants may be organic, chemically sprayed, frozen, microwaved, pasteurised and now irrradiated. In none of those cases is it required to state what has happened to the product on its way to the restaurant. Why then should this be the case with irradiated products? Either irradiation is safe —at least, we have been assured that that is so in the various debates we have had this evening —in which case there should be no requirement for it to be mentioned on menus; or it is not safe, in which case it would be wholly improper for it to be registered because people would not want to know about it in any event. Therefore it is not right for it to be mentioned specifically on menus. I am quite certain, although one speaker said earlier this evening that this was in fact to be the case in Holland, that it will not be the case in other countries in the Community.
I cannot see the French, who are probably the gastronomic leaders of the Western world —followed closely these days, I am glad to say, by Britain, thanks to the efforts of the various associations promoting the restaurant business and higher standards of gastronomy —falling in with this. Such arrangements would hardly be acceptable in the circumstances.
Therefore when the noble Baroness says, as she has in the past, that there is to be full consultation with all interested parties about the matter, I hope that that is really what she means. Frequently in these instances consultation means; "This is what we are going to do; I hope you will accept it and get on with it". Of course, that is not what consultation really means. We want the people who actually have to purvey food, be it in restaurants, hotels, cafés, bars or any other place where food is consumed, including sandwich bars and kiosks on railway stations, to be allowed to have a say in what should
1206
or should not appear on the labelling. Otherwise the whole business of consumer protection will run riot and become completely ludicrous. Therefore it will not be regarded as a serious endeavour. In those circumstances I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in his efforts, though I accept that the wording of the amendment would not necessarily achieve its object. We seek reassurance from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot accept this amendment. Perhaps I may deal with the proposed new subsection (4A) and begin by making a general point. Of course Ministers will take full account of all representations made to them in relation to any regulations authorising food irradiation. That is the purpose of consultation. But it would be quite wrong to provide in the Bill that one particular issue should take precedence over all the others.
On the general question of the possible effect of irradiation on the appearance of produce, we have to distinguish between what might be termed "quality" and the more fundamental questions of safety and nutritional value. Perhaps I may divert to answer some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Montgomery. First, the French already apply irradiation. Secondly, I think I am right that he said that either irradiation was safe, in which case it seems unnecessary to bother to label it; or if it was not safe, blah, blah, blah. I say that it is not a matter of safety in this context but, as we have said all the way through, a matter of consumer choice. I doubt whether the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will ever eat irradiated food, but he should have the choice. It is not a question of safety but of choice.
Perhaps we may return to mushrooms. As I made clear to the House at Committee stage, there are no doubts on the latter score. Irradiated mushrooms have been evaluated by the experts and are as safe and wholesome as other irradiated foods. However, if we accept that there is a problem with discolouring, there is a parallel with frozen mushrooms. Freezing, with the associated pre-treatment, causes mushrooms to brown and affects their taste. In consequence, most people prefer fresh mushrooms and the frozen market is small. But I am sure that no one would suggest that the freezing of mushrooms should be banned. Safety and wholesomeness are matters for the Government. But appearance and taste are matters for the food industry to resolve.
Turning to the proposed new subsection (4B), perhaps I may make a general point. This Government always take account of the practicability of any measure we propose. We do not need a special provision for this purpose. Mushrooms would not have to be wrapped. But, as regards any food sold loose, we are committed to introducing additional labelling rules to ensure that consumers can exercise freedom of choice. We recognise that there are difficulties in this area but I can assure your Lordships that irradiated mushrooms would not normally be regarded as fresh. We are thus consulting widely on the best way of presenting the information about irradiation

1207
treatment to consumers who buy food sold in this way. Practical considerations will be fully taken into account in the arrangements we propose.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have tried to listen to my noble friend. For the life of me I cannot understand why she could not give me the three assurances for which I asked. She came back to the question of safety but that is not the point that I and my noble friend were making. Our point concerned the appearance problem. I do not understand why the noble Baroness gave me the
1208
answer that she did, it would have been easy for her to say, yes, they would consult on these three points.
I shall leave the matter for now. Perhaps it will be taken up in another place. I am not happy. I think that appearance matters and it does not seem to me that the Government have seized the slight difference. This is not a matter of safety but of colour. The subject of freezing is totally irrelevant as regards irradiation because irradiation probably cannot be recognised by the buyer, whereas freezing can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 17 [Enforcement of Community provisions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.59:
Page 13, line 10, leave out second ("or") and insert ("including in particular provision for prohibiting or regulating").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Registration and licensing of food premises]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.
60:
Page 14, line 18, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the brief debate we had in Committee which concerned the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury which was designed to restrict the licensing power in Clause 19. I undertook to take the point away to see whether we could go some way towards meeting his concerns, which had received support on both sides of the House. I have considered the point carefully and I am pleased to be able to move this government amendment. It introduces into Clause 19 the formula that already appears in Clause 16(1)(f) to constrain the general regulation-making powers there. It makes clear that Ministers can only use the licensing powers in Clause 19 in order to secure food safety in the interests of public health or for protecting or promoting consumers' interests.
I believe that this will make it absolutely clear that the licensing powers are not to be used arbitrarily. I believe that was the concern of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not here but the staff of his office have discussed the provision with the staff of my office and he is satisfied with the wording that we have proposed. Frankly, we would have proposed that wording whatever his office staff had said; however, they were quite pleased with it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.
61:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) The Ministers shall exercise the power conferred by subsection (1)(b) above only where it appears to them to be necessary or expedient to do so —

(a) for the purpose of securing that food complies with food safety requirements or in the interests of the public health; or

(b) for the purpose of protecting or promoting the interests of consumers.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.62:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Defence of unavoidable consequence.
(" . In proceedings under section 15(1) above in respect of any food containing some extraneous matter it is a defence to prove that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that on page 10 of the Marshalled List there are two printing errors on line 2. The word "collection" is spelt incorrectly and the word "of' should be "or".
On this first occasion that I have been able to rise to my feet I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister and her noble friend Lady Hooper for a fairly large exchange of letters on a number of matters contained in the Bill and for subsequent discussions which have been helpful to me and to those who advise me. I hope they have been helpful also to my noble friend.
In this amendment we return to the question of the retailer's defence of unavoidable consequence. That was discussed under Amendment No. 100 in Committee in January. I return to the matter because I have two worries. The first worry is that Clause 7(1) of the Bill may bring within its scope the natural constituents of a food such as pieces of crushed fruit skin or perhaps the kernel or even, in the case of canned fruit, a fragment of fruit stone. In the case of fish it might be bones and so on. Manufacturers' and retail specifications for such products allow for those natural parts of the product to be present up to a certain limit because it is virtually impossible to exclude them entirely.
Two issues are involved. First, United Kingdom production tends to be of a very high specification, perhaps higher than in some other producing countries. I suggest that the way in which the Bill is framed may promote a challenge on the grounds of a barrier to trade if those natural items are to be excluded. Secondly, if they are considered to be injurious to health rather than a natural part of the food, any excess of such ingredients might more appropriately be an offence under Clause 14 of the Bill. However, the matter might be dealt with under Clause 8(2)(c).
It is neither sensible nor, even with the greatest expertise, possible to exclude everything other than the product —the piece of fish or fruit. Therefore, it seems to me that as it stands the Bill does not provide for a perfectly reasonable defence or take into account the question of international trade barriers. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment repeats the proposal made by my noble friend at Committee stage. I have not changed one bit my view that it is unnecessary.
I understand that my noble friend fears that a manufacturer whose products unavoidably contain on occasion some extraneous matter of natural origin might risk prosecution under the major offence provisions in Clause 7(1) and Clause 8(2)(c). In the unlikely event of a prosecution being taken, the defendant would have little difficulty relying on the due diligence defence. The fact that a bone was found to have been left in a can of fish would not reasonably lead an enforcement authority to the conclusion that the fish had been rendered injurious to health. Nor would it conclude that it was so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to

1211
expect it to be used for human consumption in that state. If a prosecution were to be contemplated it would most probably be on the grounds that the food was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser.
It is the Government's view that if the food's only defect is matter resulting unavoidably from the manufacturing process such a prosecution should not stick. The due diligence defence should ensure that. My noble friend's suggested amendment, on the other hand, might not prove sufficient.
The amendment would reinstate the defence in Section 3(2) of the Food Act 1984. I think that we are all now familiar with the case of the caterpillar in the tin of peas (Smedley v. Breed) but it bears repeating. In that case the defendant was able to demonstrate that his manufacturing methods were of the highest quality but was convicted, despite deploying that defence which my noble friend wishes to re-enact. That was because he could not convince the court that the presence of the caterpillar was an unavoidable consequence of the manufacturing process which was designed to exclude such objects. That result did not seem fair but was the legally correct determination of the case. I am sure that, under the defence in Clause 21, the defendant would have been acquitted on the evidence. I think that that is as far as I want to go on this point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I wonder what else she perhaps has to tell us.
I accept what my noble friend says and am most grateful to her for setting out the Government's hope and intention. However, at the end of the day, the matter depends on the court. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me regarding the trade barrier that we might inadvertently create for ourselves. We should not like to find that the Bill brings us a challenge at a later date. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Orders for facilitating the exercise of functions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert —
("(4) In subsection (3) above the reference to a disclosure being necessary for the purposes of this Act includes a reference to it being necessary—

(a) for the purpose of securing that food complies with food safety requirements or in the interests of the public health; or

(b) for the purpose of protecting or promoting the interests of consumers;

and the reference to a disclosure being necessary for the purposes of any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government are committed to freedom of information wherever possible. I am not aware that the existing provision in Clause 25, which appears in the Food Act 1984, has ever caused problems. However, in the light of concern expressed at
1212
Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and others, I undertook to look again at the wording of this clause. Having done so, I am now happy to move the amendment which, I believe, will put the matter beyond any doubt.
The amendment clarifies the circumstances in which Ministers can direct disclosure of information obtained by order under Clause 25. These are when disclosure is necessary not only to ensure food safety, but also if it is in the interests of public health or to protect or promote consumers' interests.
I believe that the clause as amended would strike a proper balance between the legitimate need to protect trade secrets which pose no threat to public health and the public's right to information. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Baroness. She has not only taken note of the amendment which I and other noble Lords moved in Committee, but she has taken note of the intention of the amendment, which is probably more important. In doing so, she has widened the scope of the amendment. I recognise that its scope is narrowed in the sense that the matter is now entirely in the hands of the Minister, but I cannot believe that any Minister of any administration, now or in the future, would possibly conceal from the public the kind of information which we are discussing. To do so would be foolish and not in his or her interest, let alone the public's interest.
In adding to our original amendment, even though in a slightly different place, the noble Baroness has succeeded in going right to the heart of the matter. She rightly says that it achieves the correct balance between maintaining trade secrets which, as we said in Committee, we certainly have no intention of undermining, and at the same time protecting the public interest. I am most grateful to the Minister for the consideration that she and her officials have shown in discussing the matter. I certainly support the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to add my words of thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as my name was also to the amendment tabled in Committee and I, too, spoke to the amendment. We are extremely grateful that the noble Baroness listened to us and has returned with the right amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations and orders: supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 17, line 39, after first ("appeal") insert ("(including costs)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have been urged to spell out the tribunal procedures in more detail. I do not regard that as appropriate in primary legislation; instead, the detail will be spelled out in regulations. However, I accept that it is right to make it clear that regulations providing for an appeal should also deal with the question of award of costs. It is important therefore to ensure that the enabling power allows this procedure. The amendment is intended to do that and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appointment of public analysts]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Procurement of samples]:
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 18, line 41, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") in line 44.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that at Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, proposed that Clause 29(1) be amended so that authorised officers could procure samples for investigation in addition to analysis or examination. As the use of the term "investigation" would have introduced a new concept into the provisions of the Bill concerning analysis and examination, we opposed that amendment but agreed to consider whether there was a need to ensure that enforcement authorities could take samples for a purpose other than analysis or examination.
Having reflected on this matter, we consider that examination and analysis must be the main purposes of sampling. However, we can see a possible need in certain circumstances for enforcement authorities to take samples for a reason other than those two. For example, it may be necessary to use a fruit expert to substantiate whether a variety of apple is the variety which it claims to be, and it may not be necessary to use the expertise of a public analyst or food examiner simply to see, taste or smell whether the quality of a food has deteriorated.
The amendment takes account of that situation by removing the constraints on enforcement officers to procure samples only for analysis or examination. We recognise that it is necessary to ensure that the status of the public analyst and the food examiner is not undermined. I do not see this as a real problem. The role of analysis and examination and the status of those who practise these techniques are not reduced in prominence by the amendment. Their
1214
work will continue to be central to the enforcement effort and the courts will continue to place considerable emphasis on the results. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister has produced an elegant solution to the problem. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the House will remember that at Committee stage I concentrated my amendments on two aspects of the matter. One aspect concerned the qualifications of examiners and the other the status of public analysts. I have received a most helpful letter from the noble Baroness from which I should like to quote two sentences. The first states:
"It is essential that the food examiner is properly qualified".
The noble Baroness goes on to say:
"Most of those currently responsible for examining food in the public health service laboratories … are medically or scientifically qualified microbiologists specialising in food microbiology. These qualifications will obviously form the starting point during the consideration of the issue".
That letter is most helpful and I accept the assurance of the noble Baroness that this matter will be handled in a responsible manner.
I am less happy about Amendment No. 67 because it omits a whole chunk of the original Bill which reads:
"An authorised officer of an enforcement authority may exercise such powers of procuring samples for analysis or examination as are conferred on him by this section."
The Association of Public Analysts is unhappy about this matter because it feels that a third class of authority is being invoked; namely, someone who is not a judge because he is not scientifically qualified to conduct analysis. I very much regret the excision from the Bill of that original paragraph in Clause 29. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will restore it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have to say "with the leave of the House", but in reply to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, perhaps I might just say that authorised officers intent on prosecution will still have to use qualified public analysts to carry out an analysis and food examiners to carry out examinations. Courts will still expect to see a certificate as to the result of such analysis or examination whenever appropriate.
The amendment should make no change to the position of public analysts or food examiners. Far from wishing not to honour those people who do such valuable work on behalf of the nation's consumers, I should like to use the opportunity to praise their work and expertise.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for doing that, but there is still the residual anxiety in my mind that we are handing over responsibility for saying that something should be analysed to someone who is not trained to do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Analysis etc. of samples]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("by the public analyst for the area in which it was procured") and insert ("either —

(i) by the public analyst for the area in which the sample was procured; or

(ii) by the public analyst for the area which consists of or includes the area of the authority").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in Committee I agreed in principle with the substance of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to enable enforcement officers to use a public analyst in their home area to analyse samples taken in other areas. The government amendment will have that effect and will also enable enforcement authorities to use the public analyst for the area in which the sample was procured where that is not the authority's own area. The choice is the authority's. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. She has produced an amendment which entirely meets the point which I raised in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 19, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, together with the others standing in my name (Amendments Nos. 71 to 88), relate to the point about which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was speaking; that is, whether the concept of a food examiner dilutes the role of the public analyst. It is similar to the discussion that we have just heard. Again, I should like to be reassured that the food examiner is not a dilution of that role and that the public analyst and the high standard of qualification, especially for microbiological examination, will be maintained. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be to remove from the Bill all references to microbiological examination and to food examiners. There would then be no statutory backing for the activity of microbiological examination. That is a different and separate activity from the chemical analysis of food. Both tasks require a high level of experience, competence and expertise. The fact that the tasks are separate does not of course mean that they cannot be undertaken by the same person, assuming he or she is appropriately qualified in both disciplines.
Most microbiological examination of food is undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Enforcement officers may also submit samples to laboratories run by local authorities or to privately run laboratories for examination. The reason that we have expanded the provisions on food examination in the Bill is to ensure that those who undertake it are suitably qualified and that their competence cannot be put into doubt by a court. The provisions mirror those relating to public analysts. There is absolutely no intention of detracting from
1216
the powers and competences of the public analysts in any way. As I said earlier, some public analysts also carry out microbiological examinations, and they may continue to do so, assuming that they hold the qualifications which we intend to prescribe for food examiners.
I hope that, in view of this explanation, your Lordships will recognise the importance of making provision in the Bill for the activity of microbiological examination and for ensuring that it is carried out to the highest standards. I hope that with this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply and I am pleased she has confirmed that the high standards will be maintained. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 88 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 21, line 3, after ("contravention") insert ("or any evidence of any contravention").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised an amendment on these lines at the Committee stage. As I then promised, I have had a look at it and have decided that my noble friend's answer was not really satisfying my concern. I therefore have tried to tidy up the amendment to make it rather better, and I have really strengthened my argument.
The food industry are very concerned that there is a risk to what is called the "home authority" principle, which could be undermined if an officer, without due cause, can inspect a factory outside his own area. This amendment seeks to support and strengthen the application of the home authority principle in consumer protection cases and to limit activity outside the authority's own area to that concerned with food injurious to health —that is connected with Clause 7, to which reference is made in the amendment —with food that fails to comply with food safety requirements (Clause 8) and with emergency prohibition notices (Clause 12).
Perhaps it might help your Lordships if I explained what the home authority principle is. It is a well-established administrative procedure whereby any business, irrespective of its size or number of outlets, may look for guidance to a single enforcement authority. That is very important in order to make sure that they get a common practice of treatment from environmental health officers or trading standards officers right across the country.
One can imagine that a large food manufacturing company with factories all over the country would find it very important for them not to get different treatment in this whole area of food safety from the various officers or authorities in different parts of the country where their factories are. So by agreement with those bodies, they have established the home authority principle, and normally the home

1217
authority which makes a common decision to spread to the other trading standards officers or environmental health officers is the one where the business's headquarters is based or where their final labelling, advertising, quantity or quality control decisions are taken. It does not really matter where it is provided that it is a standard place, and that is generally agreed. Such an arrangement serves to strengthen and streamline the links between industry and enforcement. It is therefore very important from the point of view of the efficiency of the business that this principle is not undermined.
I come back to what I was saying when everybody else was having dinner, except of course for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who was there to hear me. The most vital thing—
Baroness Trumpington: I too was there.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I did not think so. However, the most vital thing we in this country need today is the efficiency of manufacturing business in order to create the wealth on which everything else depends. Arrangements like the home authority principle are absolutely vital for that sort of purpose. Therefore I hope that, although my noble friend resisted my amendments at an earlier stage, this particular improved amendment, and the principle behind it, may be accepted by my noble friend, because it is really much more vital than perhaps I was able to make clear when we discussed this in Committee. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment. I cannot agree that we should limit these powers of entry in the way proposed.
I am glad that following discussion at Committee stage my noble friend has accepted the need for enforcement officers to be able to enter premises outside their own area in connection with the food safety provisions of the Bill. However, his amendments, if accepted, would prevent enforcement officers following up any consumer protection offences or contraventions of any regulations or orders made under the Bill. As many of our controls will in fact be in regulations I could not accept this. Nor do I see why we should distinguish between food safety and consumer protection offences. It may, for example, be necessary for enforcement officers to cross borders to check the accuracy of an organic label by visiting a farm in a different area. Moreover, it may sometimes be difficult to establish immediately whether a suspected offence relates to food safety or consumer protection —for example, the case of wine contaminated by diethlylene glycol. Enforcement officers must have adequate powers to follow up such cases.
Perhaps I may, however, take this opportunity to try and reassure my noble friend. Enforcement officers can only exercise their powers of entry in the course of their statutory duties.
1218
Clause 32(1)(b) is narrower than Clause 32(1)(a) and justifiably so. An enforcement officer operating outside his own area has to be investigating a problem originating in his own area. Moreover enforcement officers would have regard to the proper use of the resources of their authorities, and would concentrate primarily on their own areas. As I explained at Committee stage, we anticipate that enforcement officers operating outside their own area should be obliged to notify the food authority of the area entered giving reasons for doing so. This would probably be achieved in one of the codes of practice referred to in Clause 39.
The operation of the home authority principle is relevant to matters such as food labelling or food quality, neither of which are within the scope of my noble friend's amendment. Moreover, the home authority system already provides for consultation between the investigating authority and the home authority before proceedings are commenced. But that cannot override the need for the investigating authority to collect evidence from wherever that evidence may be available, whether inside or outside its area. The LACOTS scheme is concerned with trading standards and consumer protection, not environmental health —for instance, hygiene issues. I hope that my explanation has suited my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am not sure about that. I was delighted that in the end my noble friend came round on the home authority principle. However, I do not think she gave it the importance that she might have done. It may not be appropriate to pursue this point at Third Reading. If that is so, I suspect that it may be necessary to do something in another place. However, I am not altogether happy with what my noble friend has said. I shall have to read carefully what the noble Baroness has said and then decide what to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 21, line 35, after ("records") insert ("relevant to his duties").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one that I moved in Committee. I was intrigued to note that my noble friend Lady Hooper, who replied on that occasion. said that the word "relevant" was most important in this area. Therefore, we have included "relevant" in the revised amendment following her guidance.
It is presumed that an authorised officer would have access only to relevant records (it is most important that that should be so)—in other words, those specifically related to his duties under the Act. Surely it cannot be intended that an officer should have unrestrained access to all records of a food business, including personnel records. The wording of the Bill as it now stands could be interpreted as allowing him to do so. Clause 33(1) appears to provide the officer with adequate authority to inspect all relevant material.
I suggest again that it is important to ensure that there can be no doubt in people's minds when they are carrying out such inspections that they must be relevant to the duties for which they are employed. I do not believe that my amendment would be particularly harmful to the Bill or to the principle upon which the clause is drafted. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we discussed this issue in Committee and I am afraid we still believe that the amendment is unnecessary. This is a highly technical matter, but I am assured that there are sound legal reasons for not making an explicit reference to "relevant".
To my mind much the most telling is the concern that if we make such a reference in this Bill it will have a knock-on effect on other legislation. If Parliament decides in its wisdom that "relevant" is necessary here, then similar provision in parallel legislation would be necessary; for example, in Section 29 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. That section also refers to "records" rather than "relevant records". If this amendment is accepted, there is a danger that the courts will construe that section as though any records held by the business could be inspected or seized even if they were not relevant. This is not what any of us want. I am, however, extremely grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to this issue and giving me the opportunity of exploring the point with my officials.
Clause 32(1) of the Bill restricts the powers of entry of authorised officers to purposes connected with contraventions of the Bill or regulations made under it. Power to examine records arises only when the officer is exercising these powers of entry, as is made clear by the opening words of subsection (5). It follows that the power to examine records is similarly restricted to those connected with such possible contraventions. It is therefore unnecessary to make any such restriction in the Bill. If the authorised officer was to ask to see records which were unconnected with the contravention under investigation, such as tax records, the food manufacturer or trader would be entirely within his rights in refusing such access.
I understand my noble friend's concern but I hope that this explanation will satisfy him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think it does. I take it that in the event that an officer exceeds his duties, the food manufacturer could sue the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for doing something which is more than "relevant". If I could be reassured on that point, I should be perfectly happy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if there is such a thing as an over-zealous officer, he is already constrained by the provisions of this clause as I have described them.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 22, line 1, after ("computer") insert ("or any other electronic form").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee but not moved. I move it now in order to see whether or not, in the opinion of the noble Baroness, the words:
"or any other electronic form",
are necessary. If they are necessary, it would be on the basis of provision for possible changes in technology and so on. In order to ascertain the necessity or otherwise of the amendment, I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that enforcement officers should have access to the information they need to make investigations and perform their duties whether it is stored on paper or on electronic or automated systems.
However, I am confident his concerns are already met. The term "computer" appears in other legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to embrace other electronic systems too. There is therefore every reason to suppose that the expression will serve equally well in the Food Safety Bill. Even if we felt a need to put the matter beyond any conceivable doubt by amending the Bill there would be a need to avoid a knock-on effect on other legislation. Similar provisions to Clause 32(6) would have to be rewritten in all other enactments or there would be a needless doubt raised as to whether their scope was broad enough.
More important than that objection is the considerable risk that a list of other systems would be incomplete. Mr. Babbage's differentiating engine was not electronic but was a computer. We cannot tell what forms of information storage there will be in the future. Certainly they are not likely to be restricted to electronic forms. They might well be light activated. The essential elements of computer systems are: (a) the storage of data; (b) the retrieval of data; and (c) the manipulation of data. Those are not dependent on the form. I hope that that explanation fully satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should remind the House that if this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 94.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 22, line 6, leave out ("manufacturing process or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, tabled an identical amendment in Committee I agreed to take away the matter and give it further careful consideration. Having done so, I am now happy to bring it back as a government amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nothing is more flattering than to have one's own amendment regurgitated from the Government Front Bench. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment in her name and I can do nothing but support her.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I believe that this is quite disgraceful. It is very unfortunate. I think that my noble friend, with whom I had a long discussion on this very issue, might at least have told us the reason for the amendment. I should like a long explanation. I hope that the House will agree to that. I should like then to say why I object to what she is going to say.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the mover of the amendment, I believe I am entitled to speak again. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the background. As drafted, Clause 32(7) makes an enforcement officer guilty of an offence if he discloses information which he has obtained on commercial premises about any manufacturing process or trade secret other than in the course of his duty.
The amendment would lift the restriction in relation to manufacturing processes but retain it in relation to trade secrets. It would continue to cover any manufacturing processes which are themselves trade secrets.
As I said at Committee stage, I am not aware that the form of words in the Bill, which also appeared in the Food Act 1984, has ever caused problems in the past. Indeed, there are ample precedents in other legislation both for the form of words in the Bill as drafted and for the amendment. However, in view of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I see no reason not to make this change. I am assured that trade secrets, including secret processes, will continue to be given the necessary degree of protection, and the penalties for improper disclosure will remain, but not where disclosure is essential to protect public health.
I believe this amendment will help ensure that relevant information about food safety can be made available and will avoid any possibility of needless secrecy. I would not have upset my noble friend for the world. I hope he is satisfied with that full explanation.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am afraid I am not. A manufacturing process might well constitute commercially sensitive information which it is not appropriate to disclose. Examples would be the development of less labour-intensive methods for doing standard tasks or better engineered or more effective methods of such tasks as sorting and grading of raw materials. Such matters could not be seen as trade secrets and there is a need for commercial confidentiality.
If Bills and Acts have blurred this issue one needs to examine exactly why and which ones they are because there is a substantial difference. I had a long discussion with manufacturers of biscuits, cakes and
1222
confectionery who offered to tell my noble friend exactly why a manufacturing process is not covered by the term "trade secret". That is a fundamental point which I do not honestly think she has hoisted in. Perhaps she would agree to my arranging for expert people to point out to her why this matters.
When we discussed this matter we tried to find a way to meet the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, but there was not a way. Why the terms "manufacturing process" and "trade secret" cannot be accepted as being different, as they always have in the past, I cannot understand. I hope my noble friend will think again about this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 cannot be moved.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Time limit for prosecutions]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 22, line 41, at end insert ("; and

(c) unless there has been served on the person charged a notice in writing of the date and nature of the offence alleged, such notice to be served before the expiration of the period of thirty days beginning with the date when evidence which the person proposing to institute the proceedings considers is sufficient to justify a prosecution for the offence came to his knowledge.

(2) Such a notice as is mentioned in subsection 1(c) above may be served on any person either by serving it on him personally or by sending it to him by post at his usual or last known residence or place of business in the United Kingdom or, in the case of a company, at the company's registered office.
(3) For the purposes of subsection 1(c) above —

(a) a certificate of a person who institutes proceedings for an offence mentioned in that subsection which states that evidence came to his knowledge on a particular date shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and

(b) a document purporting to be a certificate of such a person and to be signed by him or on his behalf shall be presumed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should remind your Lordships that we discussed the substance of this matter during our earlier proceedings. Again I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I am grateful for her letter.
I have to accept the argument of time limits which we discussed earlier and which, she reminded me in her letter, were set down in the Bill. The problem is that an enforcement authority may not inform a potential defendant until many months or perhaps a year or two after the authority has learnt about a possible infringement. I suggest this creates a little unease.
I therefore decided that it might be better to approach the matter in a different way. With help from the Retail Consortium, which is very worried about this, I have lifted the relevant parts of Section 83(3) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. In essence, that section provides that proceedings for an offence under specified parts of that Act shall not be instituted unless a notice has been served on the person charged. Such a requirement forewarns the proprietor that an allegation is being investigated

1223
and it enables him to start his own in-house investigation while events are reasonably fresh in his mind.
If several months or a year or so elapse before proceedings are instituted, the relevant facts concerning the potential or actual defendant would have been put in place. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is no obligation on an enforcement officer to take action as soon as he becomes aware, or his attention is drawn to, or he is alerted to the fact that an offence may be committed or may have been committed. He could sit on that knowledge, which may or may not be evidence at some later time, for months, 12 months or more, before he takes any action. That seems to be the wrong way of going about the matter. Hence, before your Lordships is Amendment No. 95 which in essence replaces Section 83 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 which has stood the test of time. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment seeks to give a special protection to food manufacturers, importers and sellers. I find it difficult to find any justification for such special treatment. The effect would be to require enforcement authorities to serve notices on the defendant within 30 days of having evidence of the alleged offence, and to bar them from prosecuting if that notice had not been served. A provision of this sort would be most unusual.
There is a notice procedure for traffic offences. But traffic offences, of their very nature, are such that it is not easy to recollect the circumstances of the occasion unless there is an actual accident. My noble friend mentioned the Weights and Measures Act 1985. There is also a notice procedure in that Act. However, proceedings under that Act are likely to follow testing for such matters as short measures. While that is very important, it is certainly different from situations covered by this Bill, where the sale of unfit food can result in serious illness or even death.
This amendment would be a quite unwarranted restriction on enforcement authorities. It is also of interest to note that the Trade Descriptions Act and the Consumer Protection Act contain no such provision. It may be that my noble friend is concerned that there might be unwarranted delay in bringing cases to court. If that is so I point out that serving such a notice will not necessarily speed up proceedings. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for the explanation which, frankly, I have to reject, I must point out that I am not making a plea for special treatment. I am not concerned one little jot about traffic offences. We are not talking about traffic offences, but about food safety and the prosecution of those who may or may not offend against the legislation currently before your Lordships. It is not at all a question of speeding up anything. The amendment is giving some justice, repeated in the Weights and Measures Act 1985, to a potential offender.
1224
In a matter as serious as this it seems totally unreasonable not to give some justice. The noble Baroness underlined the seriousness of the Bill before us. The amendment is to give a man a reasonable chance within 30 days of assessing the facts that may lead to a prosecution. At this time of the night, all I can do is press the matter to a Division and, I suspect, bring the proceedings to a halt. I do not want to do that because we want to complete the Report stage of the Bill today. I have to tell my noble friend that I do not find her explanation satisfactory. I shall consider it with those who help me in these matters and in all probability will return to the subject at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Punishment of offences]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("the statutory maximum") and insert ("a fine not exceeding the appropriate level on the standard scale, which shall not in any case exceed the statutory maximum").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are advised that at present all offences under the food hygiene regulations and other related measures are punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £2,000. This means that the same maximum fine applies to trivial offences, such as the failure to keep a nail brush by a wash basin, as to major offences, such as failing to prevent pest infestation in a food room. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce flexibility to enable different maximum fines to be fixed for different offences so that the punishment can relate to the offence itself rather than be rigid in its effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must resist the amendment. Noble Lords will see that the Bill already provides a maximum fine of £2,000 in respect of all either way offences which are not those falling within Clauses 7, 8 or 14. I should stress that this is a maximum amount. There is no reason why courts should not award lesser amounts where the offence is less serious. I rarely believe in personalising things, but speaking as a former magistrate, I can say that very seldom is the maximum penalty imposed. I hope the noble Lord will see that the amendment is unnecessary and that he will be willing to withdraw it.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Appeals to magistrates' court or sheriff]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 23, line 43, leave out ("to a magistrates' court or in Scotland, to the sheriff—) and insert —

("(i) to the chief officer of the relevant enforcement authority; or

(ii) to a magistrates' court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97 perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 98 and 100. In speaking to Amendment No. 97, I have to say that the interpretation of the food hygiene general regulations is considered by many persons to be a somewhat inexact science. An example is the regulations requiring floor coverings in food rooms to be smooth and impervious. Interpretations differ as to what this means in practice. Some experts accept, for example, that quarry tiles provide a hygienic surface, while others say that the narrow gaps between them give rise to risks.
Clause 37 seeks to recognise this by providing a means of appealing against an improvement notice and certain other decisions. However, the only means of appeal envisaged is an appeal to a magistrates' court. We are told that many issues could in fact be resolved by discussion between the proprietor of the food business and senior staff of the enforcement authority without the need to take up the valuable time of a magistrates' court.
Amendment No. 98 is a consequential amendment which would mean that an appeal to the enforcement authority would have to be lodged, considered and decided within 14 days of the date of issue of the improvement notice. In the event that the plaintiff is still not satisfied, this time-scale would still enable him to appeal to a magistrates' court within the time limit of 21 days laid down in subsection (5). The amendment to subsection (5) is itself consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, improvement notices serviced under Clause 10 are issued by appropriate officers who are authorised by the enforcement authority. Any action by the officer concerned must therefore be deemed to be with the approval of the authority. In some authorities these decisions are taken only by senior officers. If the authority is small, the appeal envisaged by the amendment might end up being made to the same officer who made the original decision. That surely cannot be right. The proper procedure for any appeal is to the magistrates' court or, in the case of Scotland, to the sheriff. That secures the independence of the procedure. It has to be fair and we believe that it has to be seen to be fair. I hope in view of that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. The situation as envisaged here was one in which the authority was large enough to have a chief officer who would himself be independent of the officer who raised the matter in the first place. It would certainly not be appropriate for a small authority to have the same officer acting by way of appeal as had originally issued the notice.
The thinking behind the amendment was that in certain cases the magistrates' court, or in Scotland the sheriff's court, could be relieved of a good deal of litigation if some form of internal appeal were possible. I note what the noble Baroness said about the nature of the appeal standing in the name of the authority in question. I shall take account of that
1226
when I study her remarks. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 24, line 9, leave out ("time") and insert ("period").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 99 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 103. The purpose of these amendments is to standardise the wording used throughout the Bill. Your Lordships will note that at present a length of time is described as a "period" in Clause 10 and as "time" in Clause 37. There is no reason for that difference in wording and these amendments rectify the position.
I hope in the light of that explanation that the House will agree to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("21 days") and insert ("(a) one month").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment extends from 21 days to one month the period within which an appeal against certain decisions of an enforcement authority may be brought. The decisions which are affected are those to refuse to issue a certificate lifting a prohibition order under Clause 11 or an emergency prohibition order under Clause 12; any decision to refuse, cancel, suspend or revoke a licence required by regulations made under Clause 19 and, subject to a further amendment which I hope I shall be moving shortly, decisions to serve an improvement notice under Clause 10.
Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that similar appeals against decisions of the enforcement authorities under the Food Act 1984 must be brought within a period of 21 days. However, in Scotland the existing legislation (which is the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956) provides that the appeals may be brought within a period of one month. We are now aligning the legislation for England, Wales and Scotland, and on further consideration it seemed to us to be unreasonable to shorten the period in Scotland in comparison to the existing legislation when making this alignment. We have judged it preferable to lengthen the period in England —and lengthening the period would obviously be of benefit to some appellants.
I believe that this is a straightforward change and, accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 24, line 11, after ("appeal") insert ("or
(b) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(a) above, that period or the period specified in the improvement notice, whichever ends the earlier").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104.
These amendments clarify the provisions of the Bill on appeals against improvement notices. During the debates in Committee, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth suggested that the Bill ought to provide for compensation to be payable to the owner of a food business who complied with an improvement notice and whose appeal against that notice was subsequently successful. When we were considering what my noble friend said, we recognised that the Bill provides the possibility for someone to commit an offence by not having complied with an improvement notice, and subsequently to appeal against that notice within the time limits laid down within the legislation. This situation is obviously undesirable and the amendments have been tabled in order to overcome that undesirability. Therefore I trust that they are acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the outcome of the undertaking she gave at an earlier stage to consider the matter and for putting down these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 24, line 19, leave out ("time") and insert ("period").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:—
("Appeals against improvement notices
(" . —(1) On an appeal against an improvement notice, the court may either cancel or affirm the notice and, if it affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the court may in the circumstances think fit.
(2) Where, apart from this subsection, any period specified in an improvement notice would include any day on which an appeal against that notice is pending, that day shall be excluded from that period.
(3) An appeal shall be regarded as pending for the purposes of subsection (2) above until it is finally disposed of, is withdrawn or is struck out for want of prosecution.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to issue codes of practice]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 24, line 44, at end insert —
("(4) Before issuing any code under this section, the Ministers or the Minister shall consult with such organisations as appear to them or him to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the code.
(5) Any consultation undertaken before the commencement of subsection (4) above shall be as effective, for the purposes of that subsection, as if undertaken after that commencement.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been prompted by the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for consultation on codes of practice under this clause. I agree that it would be helpful to ensure that Ministers
1228
consult appropriate representative organisations before issuing codes of practice. This amendment would ensure that Ministers had a duty to do so. It follows the wording of the provisions for consultation now included in Clause 26(5). It is also included in the amendment to ensure that all such consultation is valid, even if begun before the Act is fully in force. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this amendment which picks up a point that was raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee as to the consultation procedure before the codes of practice are issued. The Government have now accepted the case that codes for the guidance of food authorities, which will be crucial to the success of the legislation, should be discussed with the organisations concerned beforehand. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out a commitment to consult the local authority associations specifically because these will be the people most closely involved.
I shall have to read out the next sentence most carefully to the Minister. It would also be helpful to have an indication of the circumstances in which the provisions of the new subsection (5), whereby consultation having effect before the coming into force of the new subsection will also be effective for this purpose, will have effect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Regulations as to charges]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 26, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended moving a similar amendment at Committee stage but unfortunately I did not. Amendment No. 106 is a probing amendment. I wish to find out from the Minister the kind of enforcement activities the Government envisage for which food businesses will be required to pay. Is it right that the food business, whether it is manufacturing or retailing, should pay for the enforcement of the Bill? One might ask, is industry henceforth to pay fees for any and every enforcement activity covered by this or any other kind of Bill? Come to think of it, perhaps one might ask whether this provision in the Bill is the precursor of any enforcement activity which might fatten the weights and measures offices or the trading standards service preparatory to self-financing ready for privatisation or for conversion into a self-financing agency.
Seriously, I recognise that subsection (4) provides that,
"a charge may not exceed a maximum amount, or be less than a minimum amount".
The subsection goes on in paragraphs (a) and (b) to make various provisions. I noted that on the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill in 1987 when we were discussing permitted charges the Government at that time said that they would introduce a monitoring service to ensure that charges that were to be made were relevant to the business,

1229
as it were, of that Act of Parliament. I should like to be reassured that notwithstanding Clause 44(4) the Government have in mind that charges will be germane to the real matters that the Bill focuses attention on and that local authorities will not have a free hand in making charges for any enforcement activity. It is in a spirit of inquiry that I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment appears to question whether the scope of Clause 44 is perhaps too broad. The power to charge under food legislation is not new. Such powers already exist under Parts I and II of the Food Act 1984 and in Scottish legislation. However, the existing powers are subsidiary to the main regulation-making power, whereas Clause 44 would give a self-standing power. The new power would be wider as well as more comprehensive and flexible.
I can, however, assure my noble friend that we do not intend to make any radically different use of this power and we fully intend that enforcement authorities will continue to provide most of their services free of charge. Enforcement authorities already charge for some of their services, such as the export certification of meat, and the Bill must of course include a power that will allow this to continue.
Clause 44 would also be used to enable local authorities to charge for training courses on food hygiene. This is desirable, as the provision of training courses is a task undertaken by environmental health officers which is subsidiary to their main job of enforcing food law. It is right that such subsidiary tasks should wherever possible be self-financing. We also need the clause to allow continuation of the ministry charges for milk and dairies inspections and to allow such charges to be differentiated according to herd size. Differentiation was recommended by the efficiency scrutiny and the principle is supported by industry. Moreover, it might be right to levy charges to cover the cost of issuing licences under Clause 19. The powers need to be widely drawn to cater for such eventualities. However, as my noble friend Lady Hooper made clear on Second Reading, we do not envisage charges for registration of food premises.
I hope that the House will agree that Clause 44 contains a necessary power that Ministers will be able to use to allow charging in reasonable cases and at sensible rates. I commend this clause as a useful and flexible part of the Bill's provisions for enforcement. I hope that for once I have been able to satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that that is rather unkind because in Committee and earlier today my noble friend the Minister has satisfied me on a number of points which have been raised. On this occasion she reassures me but she does not totally satisfy me because the provision gives enormous scope, some of which she has outlined. I am however a little reassured by the words: "Ministers may make regulations". Presumably they will come before both Houses of Parliament so that if we feel that the scope is being
1230
somewhat exceeded there may be half a chance to do something about it.
I thank my noble friend for her assurances on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Regulations and orders]:
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 27, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) Any power of the Ministers or the Minister to make regulations or orders under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(3) Any statutory instrument containing —

(a) regulations under this Act;

(b) an order under this Act other than an order under section 59(3) below; or

(c) an Order in Council under section 57 below,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Before making —

(a) any regulations under this Act, other than regulations under section 17(2) or 18(1)(b) above; or

(b) any order under Part I of this Act,

the Ministers shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order.
(5) Any consultation undertaken before the commencement of subsection (4) above shall be as effective, for the purposes of that subsection, as if undertaken after that commencement.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Statutory Instruments]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 27, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 108 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 109. We on these Benches would much prefer to see as much detail as possible on important matters. We consider irradiation of foodstuffs to be a very important matter, although there may be a difference between us and the noble Baroness and her department on the degree of importance that one attaches to the irradiation of food. If it is not agreed that the detail should be included on the face of the Bill the least we should ask for is that it should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of your Lordships' House rather than the negative resolution procedure.
We know that the Government do not like the time that is taken up by the affirmative resolution procedure, and we appreciate the difficulties that the Government face with the shortage of time for their legislative programme. However, we feel that in such an important matter as this the public will expect at least the opportunity to discuss the matters as openly and fully as possible. I suggest that the affirmative resolution procedure is the most suitable. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, having added my name to the amendment I should say a few words in

1231
support of it. By any standards irradiation will be an important question. The very fact that it is important in my opinion justifies the use of the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure which is to apply to all other regulations made under the Bill.
We have the opportunity to pray against the regulations if the amendment is rejected. Some of us are better at prayer than others. A Scottish minister of religion told me that the anagram for "best in prayer" is "Presbyterian" whereas the anagram for "Episcopal" is "Pepsi Cola". I believe that there should be an affirmative resolution in this instance. If the Government's case is as strong as the Minister makes it out to be, an affirmative resolution should sail through both Houses of Parliament quite easily. I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I endorse the view that on matters of public interest, such as food irradiation, there must be full scrutiny of Government proposals. However, I do not believe that use of the affirmative resolution procedure is the way to ensure that. As the Committee on Delegated Legislation explained in its 1973 report, negative procedure should be the norm. Affirmative resolution should only be used for three types of powers: those substantially affecting Acts of Parliament; those having significant financial effects, for example imposing a new tax; and those involving considerations of special importance, for example, creating a new type of serious criminal offence.
In this context it is perhaps significant that existing powers to control food irradiation are subject only to annulment procedure. There have already been three statutory instruments concerning food irradiation, the first made as long ago as 1967 (references 1967 No. 385, 1969 No. 1039 and 1972 No. 205). All were made by negative resolution under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 which has since been consolidated into the Food Act 1984. That is also the right approach for this new Act. Of course, if certain regulations such as those on irradiation are felt to merit a debate, such regulations could be prayed against and debated as if the affirmative procedure had been followed. I recognise that by convention your Lordships' House does not vote on such regualtions, but then we do not vote on affirmative resolution regulations either. However, if people feel very strongly, there can be a vote against a negative resolution regulation in another place.
I must emphasise that there is no chance of important proposals slipping through unnoticed if we provide for negative resolution procedure. Clause 26 requires public consultation on any regulations relating to irradiation. When such regulations are laid, they are published and appear on the House of Lords Order Papers. Noble Lords are aware of course that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments scrutinises orders and regulations most carefully and will draw the House's attention to orders or regulations if necessary.
1232
The key point is that we shall consult on any regulations relating to irradiation. That is by far the best way to take account of the views of interested parties. It means that adjustments can be made to draft regulations rather than the simple "yes" or "no" involved in affirmative resolution procedure. That ends the third lesson for this evening.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I cannot say that I understood very much of it, but I shall read it tomorrow and I dare say that everything will become clear. Obviously, we are disappointed that we cannot take the measure that I proposed in the amendment and I dare say that the matter will be taken further in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 110:
Leave out Clause 48.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 30, line 19, at end insert —
(" "labelling", in relation to a food, includes any words, particulars, trade mark, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to the food and appearing on the packaging of the food or on any document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying the food;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is self-explanatory. We discussed the matter in Committee. Although I had not tabled an amendment at that stage, I raised the matter in the clause stand part debate.
The Bill already contains several definitions and our earlier debate appeared to recognise the importance of labelling. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to include a definition of labelling in the Bill. There are so many other definitions set out in the clause. The proposal here is taken from the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and is derived from the EC labelling directive. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend raised this point in Committee and, as she knows, we gave the suggestion much careful consideration. Despite the late hour, I am glad to have this opportunity to explain our reasons. The definitions in Clause 53 apply to words or phrases which are being given an unusual or expanded meaning. The concept of labelling in the Bill is the same as that in common usage. That has not led to any difficulties in the past.
The proposed amendment is based on the definition contained in the Food Labelling Regulations 1984, but future EC or domestic

1233
developments could call for a new definition. To have a definition already in place in primary legislation could act as a constraint. I hope that my noble friend will accept my explanation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 114:
Page 31, line 9, at end insert —

("emergency control order

section 13(1)").

Page 31, line 24, at end insert ("(1) and (2)").
Page 31, line 25, at end insert ("(1)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 31, line 27, column 2, leave out ("11(1)") and insert ("11(5)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 31, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) Where, apart from this subsection, any period of less than seven days which is specified in this Act would include any day which is —

(a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

(b) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of Great Britain concerned,

that day shall be excluded from that period.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Water undertakers]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 32, line 13, leave out from ("to") to end of line 18 and insert ("the supply of water to any premises, whether by a water undertaker or by means of a private supply (within the meaning of Chapter 11 of Part 11 of the Water Act 1989).
(2) In the following provisions of that Act, namely—

section 52 (duties of water undertakers with respect to water quality);

section 53 (regulations for preserving water quality); and

section 64 (additional powers of entry for the purposes of Chapter II),

for the words "domestic purposes", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(3) In subsection (2) of section 56 of that Act (general functions of local authorities in relation to water quality), for the words "domestic purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes" and for the words "those purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic purposes".
(4) In subsection (1) of section 57 of that Act (remedial powers of local authorities in relation to private supplies), for the words "domestic purposes", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(5) In subsection (1) of section 66 of that Act (interpretation etc. of Chapter II), after the definition of "consumer" there shall be inserted the following definition —
" 'food production purposes' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1A) below;".
(6) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(1A) In this Chapter references to food production purposes are references to the manufacturing, processing, preserving or marketing purposes with respect to food or drink for which water supplied to food production premises may be used; and in this subsection 'food production premises' means premises used for the purposes of a business of preparing food or drink for consumption otherwise than on the premises." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that this amendment and the proposed new clause covering the corresponding Scottish provision which appears in Amendment No. 118 were put down relatively late in our proceedings. However, I felt that it was proper for your Lordships to have the opportunity to consider them. As presently drafted, Clause 55 excludes water undertakers from the main provisions of the Bill, but not private supplies of water. The clause also empowers Ministers to make an order applying the strictures of the Water Act to water supplied by them to food processing, as well as to domestic premises.
In the light of further consideration, the new clauses change the way in which water is handled in the Food Safety Bill. Our underlying objective is to protect the consumer from contamination that might be introduced into food from water used in its production or preparation.
The amendment and the corresponding Scottish provision, which has the support of my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, therefore amend the Water Act provisions so that the quality standards for domestic water will apply to water used for food production as soon as these clauses come into effect, rather than waiting for regulations to be made. The Water (Scotland) Act dates back to 1980, but it was amended by Schedule 22 to the Water Act 1989.
I should perhaps explain that, so far as private water supplies are concerned, we are planning to do two things which are not apparent from the text of the amendment. First, my colleagues at the Department of the Environment and their equivalent in Scotland are planning regulations under the Water Act to deal with private supplies, the frequency of sampling of such supplies, and so on. However, the Government need to consider and consult on exactly what regulations are appropriate, and this is in hand.
Secondly, we plan complementary regulations under Clause 16 of the Bill to ensure, inter alia, that private supplies do not pose a risk to health in food produced or processed by a manufacturer and that someone is responsible for any health problem that can be traced back to the water used. Among the measures that might be used are periodic tests by food processors. I would emphasise, however, that it is not our wish or our intention to impose needless

1235
burdens on food processors. We will, of course, be consulting fully before bringing forward any regulations. Nevertheless, public health considerations are paramount and we must have an overall system which protects the consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for the words of explanation she gave in relation to both these amendments. As she has so rightly said, they have been tabled rather late in the proceedings and at a very late hour this evening. We shall not be opposing either of the amendments, but I think it would be only fair to say that we shall need to take advice on the matter and, if it is necessary to come back at Third Reading, I hope the circumstances will be understood by the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Water supply: Scotland
. —(1) Nothing in Part II of this Act or any regulations or order made under that Part shall apply in relation to the supply of water to any premises, whether by a water authority (within the meaning of section 3 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980) or by means of a private supply (within the meaning of Part VIA of that Act).
(2) In the following provisions of that Act, namely—
section 76A (duties of water authorities with respect to water quality); and
section 76B (regulations for preserving water quality),
for the words "domestic purposes", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(3) In subsection (2) of section 76F of that Act (general functions of local authorities in relation to water quality), for the words "domestic purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes" and for the words "those purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic purposes".
(4) In subsection (1) of section 76G of that Act (remedial powers of local authorities in relation to private supplies), for the words "domestic purposes", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(5) In subsection (1) of section 76L of that Act (interpretation etc. of Part VIA), after the definition of "analyse" there shall be inserted the following definition —
" 'food production purposes' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1A) below;".
(6) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(1A) In this Part references to food production purposes are references to the manufacturing, processing, preserving or marketing purposes with respect to food or drink for which water supplied to food production premises may be used; and in this subsection 'food production premises' means premises used for the purposes of a business of preparing food or drink for consumption otherwise than on the premises." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions of regulations under section 16(1)]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 121:
Page 34, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert ("Provision for prohibiting").
Page 34, line 18, leave out ("any disease so specified") and insert (", or which is liable to be suffering or to have suffered from, any disease specified in the regulations").
Page 35, line 45, at end insert —
("Inspection etc. of food sources
7. —(1) Provision for securing the inspection of food sources by authorised officers of enforcement authorities for the purpose of ascertaining whether they —

(a) fail to comply with the requirements of the regulations; or

(b) are such that any food derived from them is likely to fail to comply with those requirements or food safety requirements.

(2) Provision for enabling such an officer, if it appears to him on such an inspection that any food source falls within sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above, to give notice to the person in charge of the food source that, until a time specified in the notice or until the notice is withdrawn —

(a) no commercial operations are to be carried out with respect to the food source; and

(b) the food source either is not to be removed or is not to be removed except to some place so specified.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 40, line 33, at end insert —
("The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c.66)
In section 23(4) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (application for new licence), for the words "section 13 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956" there shall be substituted "section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 122 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 123. These technical amendments introduce references to relevant provisions of the Food Safety Bill in certain Scottish legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 41, line 41, at end insert —
("The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45)
In section 39 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (street traders' licences)—

(a) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "section 7 of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act 1914" there shall be substituted the words "regulations made under section 19 of the Food Safety Act 1990"; and

(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) for the words "regulations made under sections 13 and 56 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956", there shall be substituted the words "section 1(3) of the Food Safety Act 1990";

(ii) for the words "islands or district council" there shall be substituted the words "food authority (for the purposes of section 5 of the Food Safety Act 1990)"; and

(iii) for the words "sections 13 and 56 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956", there shall be substituted the words "section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 44, line 32, column 2, leave out ("17(1) and 26(2)") and insert ("and 17(1)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 125 to 132. These are technical amendments to Tables A and B, to insert two references that were omitted and in the interests of simplicity to remove some that are unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 132:
Page 44, line 33, column 2 leave out ("sections 16(1)(e) and 26(2)(a)") and insert ("section 16(1)(e)").
Page 44, line 45, column 2, leave out ("49") and insert ("49(2)"). Page 44, leave out line 46.
Page 45, line 10, column 2, leave out ("17(1) and 26(2)") and insert ("and 17(1)").
Page 45, line 11, column 2, leave out ("sections 16(1)(e) and 26(2)(a)") and insert ("section 16(1)(e)").
Page 45, line 12, column 2, leave out ("section 16(1)(b)") and insert ("sections 5(6) and 16(1)(b), (c)").
Page 45, line 16, column 2, leave out ("49") and insert ("49(2)").
Page 45, leave out line 17.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before midnight.