Food Safety Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 12 February 1990 vol 515 cc1184-237

8.34 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 14 [Selling food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded]:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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: 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 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 "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 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 moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 12, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 46 and insert —

1. ("(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;
2. (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
3. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 —

1. (a) for the purpose of securing that food complies with food safety requirements or in the interests of the public health; or
2. (b) for the purpose of protecting or promoting the interests of consumers.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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—

1. (a) for the purpose of securing that food complies with food safety requirements or in the interests of the public health; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 —

1. (i) by the public analyst for the area in which the sample was procured; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 95:

Page 22, line 41, at end insert ("; and

1. (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 —

1. (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
2. (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 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.

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 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 moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 23, line 43, leave out ("to a magistrates' court or in Scotland, to the sheriff—) and insert —

1. ("(i) to the chief officer of the relevant enforcement authority; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 103:

Page 24, line 19, leave out ("time") and insert ("period").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 —

1. (a) regulations under this Act;
2. (b) an order under this Act other than an order under section 59(3) below; or
3. (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 —

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 —

1. (a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 —

1. (a) fail to comply with the requirements of the regulations; or
2. (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 —

1. (a) no commercial operations are to be carried out with respect to the food source; and
2. (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 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 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)—

1. (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
2. (b) in subsection (4)—
1. (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";
2. (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
3. (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 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 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.