Lords Sitting of 18 January 1990

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Russian Warships
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the scale of building of ships of war for the navy of the USSR; and whether this has increased or decreased over the last two years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we do of course take a keen interest in Soviet naval shipbuilding activity. In general, we have detected no great change over the past two years —neither increase nor decrease. The Soviet Government have announced plans for conversion of shipyards from naval to civil work, but so far we have noted only one significant example of this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government regard with equanimity the possession of a substantial navy by the Soviet Union, which obviously has very little need for protection of sea communications, or whether they hope to see there too some activity by way of disarmament?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that the Soviet Union is currently engaged in major combatant and submarine construction programmes in all major categories of naval vessels. The bulk of those programmes has been established in production well in excess of five years. The trend is downward with some of the more mature among them; but among the more recent classes the position is unchanged or the trend is upward. Those on a rising trend —we judge in terms of annual completions —are in surface ships, a new class of frigate and the Sovremennyy guided missile destroyer, and in the submarine area the Oscar anti-ship cruise missile platform and the Akula nuclear powered attack submarine.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister say why it is that at a time when Mr. Dick Cheney, the American Defense Secretary, is considering cutting the US defence budget by 150 billion dollars over the next five years and has said that Soviet defence spending is coming down, Britain alone is set to increase its defence expenditure by £1 billion in each of the next three years? Why do Her Majesty's Government persist in ignoring the fact that the Berlin Wall has come tumbling down? That should enable fresh winds to blow away the cold war mentality that dominates much of their thinking.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make quite clear to the noble Lord that it is because of our defence in conjunction with our allies over the past 40 years that we are where we are at this very moment in time. There is no greater moment of uncertainty and concern in the Transcaucasus than at the moment. We must always consider their position of capability rather than intention. As your Lordships will know, their capability is still immeasurably greater than that of our NATO allies.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Minister say what the programme of scrapping has been during the period to which he referred? Would the Soviet Union have scrapped fewer than 20 major ships in that major two-year period? How many submarines has it scrapped? Will the Minister confirm the American view that a very great proportion of the Soviet fleet is obsolescent? Finally, will he further confirm that during this period the West's considerable lead in naval power has not been eroded in any way?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the problem is that naval forces are not included in the current conventional force reduction negotiations.
The Earl of Kimberly: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in view of the fact that NATO has kept the peace for the past 40 years and, with regard to my noble friend's Question, the one thing that one does not want to do is throw away everything? At this moment in time should we not stay as strong as possible in NATO?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope and trust that all noble Lords will agree with my noble friend's comments.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, unfortunately the Minister implied that naval disarmament is not included in the current talks. Is he not aware that this is because of the Western attitude? Some Russians are perfectly willing, and have been for some time, to include those talks in the disarmament negotiations. If he is so worried about the naval shipbuilding of the Soviet Union, will he explain why the British Government and the West resist disarmament negotiations on naval weapons?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I can make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord. Naval forces are included in the current round of CSBM talks (the Confidence and Security Building Measures mandate) which are going on at this very moment. The West's proposals seek to encourage openness and predictability in military activities but the Soviet proposals for constraints on size and duration of exercises are not acceptable to the West. We have to exercise our deterrent posture.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that comparisons with the United States are beside the point? The United States can defend its own hemisphere. We are wholly dependent, as we always have been, on oceanic communication. Is that not a good reason for treating naval problems on their own?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as an aside to my noble friend's point, no doubt your Lordships are aware that NATO and her allies have 385 surface ships and the Warsaw Pact 220. Our superiority is of course for supply and protection of the North Atlantic routes.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can my noble friend detect anything in the fact that, although in 1970 and the years afterwards there was a very large building programme in the Soviet navy, these ships are now becoming somewhat aged and needing repairs? Is that not distorting the fact that there may be a reduction in the strength of the Soviet navy? Can he tell me whether, on balance, the figure is going up or down?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in numerical terms it is not easy to answer the noble Viscount. However, the only sectors that are showing any signs of long-term reductions are missile control boats, minor combatants (in other words, minor warfare and patrol craft) and auxiliaries. The former two categories are highly dependent on export orders.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Question relates to our survival as a maritime nation. Is not the biggest threat to our survival if hostilities broke out —and God forbid —the fact that we now have hardly any merchant navy left to sustain us in the face of an adversary?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the British merchant fleet continued to decline, our defence capability could be affected. But there is certainly no serious cause for concern that the needs of our armed forces could not be met.

Sizewell B: Cost Estimate
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What estimates of the total cost of Sizewell B have been submitted to them by the CEGB.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the most recent estimate of the cost of Sizewell B was that which the CEGB advised to the Hinkley Point C Inquiry in the autumn of 1989. The board then said that the estimate was likely to increase by 10 per cent. This gave a total of £1·86 billion at 1987 prices.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the figures which were given to the Hinkley Point Inquiry represent an 11 per cent. increase over the original cost at gross prices and a 25 per cent. increase at real prices taking inflation into account? Are not the costs of building Sizewell B escalating out of all proportion? Would it not be much cheaper either to scrap Sizewell B altogether or to transform it into a gas-fired station?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the CEGB's statement also identified that the extra costs were
738
mainly the result of developments in design, including additional requirements to meet safety commitments, and the increased costs were those of establishing a first-of-a-kind design in full detail. On the noble Lord's second supplementary question, the Government are firmly committed to the establishment of this station in order to secure the supply and the diversity of supply that the nuclear power station will give.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the CEGB evidence to the Hinkley Point Inquiry was submitted before the Government's decision to cancel the three other PWRs? Is he further aware that as a result of that decision between £200 million and £400 million in extra costs—that is the estimate of the University of Sussex —will be loaded onto Sizewell B rather than spread across the four PWRs?
Is the noble Viscount also aware that the cost of the Hinkley Point Inquiry incurred by the CEGB and the cost of other PWRs that have been cancelled is an extra £44 million which again now has to be considered as part of Sizewell B? Who will pay for that? Will it be the taxpayer or the electricity consumer?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot go further on the costs than I have already. Those are the figures that the CEGB has prepared. There are no other figures available. I do not think that I should comment on the costs that the noble Lord has put forward. The Hinkley Point C Inquiry has been brought to a conclusion and the report is awaited.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the country, the Government and the consumer have already been victims of slipshod accounting, to say the least, on the part of the CEGB? How can we be sure that the figures that have now been given to the Government for the total completion cost of the PWR at Sizewell are any less slipshod? Will he now give an estimate of what the cost to the consumer of electricity produced by Sizewell will be?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the CEGB has undertaken to carry out a review of the costs of Sizewell B. The board expects to complete the review in two to three months' time. The present expectation is that there will be a single price for all nuclear output, and that is currently the subject of commercial negotiation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the escalation of costs for Sizewell B is in line with those for the Channel Tunnel and that it is common for large enterprises to be involved in such escalations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. Safety considerations are an important factor. Thus the increase in civil works costs was affected by detailed safety analysis of seismic requirements. The increased costs to the nuclear steam supply system excluded expenditure to meet additional safety requirements agreed with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to make a Statement to the House after the review has been carried out by the CEGB?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we should wait and see what the review has to say.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as it is most important that we should know, will the Minister assure us that when the review has taken place the Government will come to both Houses and give Members the opportunity to assess the real question of whether in all the existing circumstances the project should proceed at all?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister's figures show that the cost of the nuclear power station will be at least £2 billion. Is he aware that according to the Government's own figures an investment of £3·8 billion in energy efficiency could reduce the cost of the United Kingdom primary energy used by nearly 20 per cent., reduce the carbon dioxide emissions which cause the greenhouse effect by 30 per cent. at current levels and save the consumer £12 billion? Would that not be a better investment than continuing the wasteful expenditure on Sizewell B?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government believe strongly in increasing energy efficiency. However, as I have already said, there is no prospect of higher investment in energy efficiency rendering it unnecessary to build new generating plant.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it is useless to try to compare the capital costs of anything built today with something of a parallel character built 10 years ago? It is just not possible.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I tend to agree that the figures are incomparable.

Regional Economic Growth and Air Fares
3.23 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to further their policy of encouraging economic growth in the regions, and North Wales in particular, by ensuring that air fares from Manchester are in line with those of Heathrow.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government's policy is to remove restrictions in aviation arrangements between governments so that airlines are free to compete on fares and other aspects of their services, subject only to proper safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. We have had
740
considerable success in liberalisation, both bilaterally and within the EC. The increase in competition which results is the best way of bringing down fares, including those from Manchester.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. How does he equate declared government policy of decentralisation when the fares from Manchester to Europe are, on average, 52 per cent. higher than those from Heathrow? Does my noble friend really want me to travel all the way to Heathrow, thus polluting the M.6 and M.1 and further overcrowding Heathrow?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not sure that I can advise my noble friend on the latter part of his question. However, fares from Manchester or from any other airport must reflect the costs of providing the service concerned. Therefore, fares from Manchester to European destinations tend to be higher than fares from London because of Manchester's greater distance and the lower level of demand, which reduces operators' opportunities for economies of scale. But on long-haul routes such as those to the USA the differences are less pronounced and fares tend to be the same whether from Manchester or London.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, is it not also the case that communications between London, the Channel Tunnel and North Wales must be improved dramatically and quickly if that large and important region is to benefit from the single market in 1992? Will he therefore convey to his right honourable friend the need, for example, to electrify the line from Euston to Holyhead and ask him that it be done as a matter of urgency?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, of course I shall convey to my right honourable friend anything that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says. However, as I am sure he knows, the Government are making a massive investment in the road infrastructure of North Wales. The most notable element is the improvement to dual-carriageway standard of the A.55 across North Wales, costing some £550 million. It will reduce the journey time from Bangor to Chester from over three hours to about one hour. That is probably quicker than would be the result of electrification of the railways.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend remain firm in a view which he expressed a moment ago, that regulation of air fares is not government policy and that they should be deregulated and set by the airlines in accordance with their commercial judgment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I must agree with my noble friend. The agreement in principle at the Transport Council on 5th December provides a framework for the next stage of liberalisation and sets goals for the future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that more than 60 per cent.

741
of air traffic is centred at Heathrow and he said that Manchester Airport is used less than Heathrow. However, how does he explain the fact that when Singapore Airlines, which had two flights per week into Manchester, asked for seven the Government restricted it to only three per week? Surely that would have been a way of increasing the income of Manchester Airport and perhaps ultimately reducing landing charges. That does not seem to be a way of encouraging competition or regional development.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot comment on the particular case raised by the noble Lord but I shall write to him. The Government encourage the maximum use of regional airports to meet local demand and to relieve the pressure on the London airports. Over the past decade the Government have approved borrowing totalling over £240 million for the development of local authority airports. That together with airports' internally generated resources has facilitated over £300 million of investment.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence)Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Food safety and consumer protection]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("any class of food, or in food sources or any class of").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("(whether going to the fitness of the food or otherwise)") and insert ("(going wherever practicable to the fitness of the food)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with Clause 16(1) which contains a provision that could
742
be subject to misinterpretation. The intention of the words now appearing in brackets in the subsection is to admit the use of microbiological standards of varying types.
However, as the World Health Organisation report pointed out, since food which meets microbiological standards may not be safe to eat, in our view it would be better if the provision contained a presumption in favour of using the strongest regulations possible. If such a provision is not included, the paragraph contains a possible loophole in that there is no requirement to prescribe microbiological standards which seek the highest level of fitness of food which can be attained. However, Ministers may wish to offer an assurance that it is the Government's intention to use their powers to meet the highest standard available and that the wording in the paragraph is merely intended to enable flexibility in interpreting that aim. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his explanation of the intention behind the amendment. I can certainly give him the assurance that we intend to aim at the highest standards. However, I regret that I can not accept his amendment because the effect of it is unclear.
Exclusion of the word "otherwise" in line 23 would seem to aim to confine the power to make microbiological standards to the fitness of food only. There may be circumstances where one would wish to make microbiological standards for other reasons, as I believe the noble Lord acknowledged, particularly the quality of food. As an example, the microbiological standard ensuring the fitness of milk could require the absence of pathogenic micro-organisms which can cause milk-borne disease. However, other spoilage organisms could, if present, cause a deterioration in the quality of the milk during its normal shelf life. A microbiological standard covering quality aspects can provide protection to very young or very old, who are vulnerable people, as well as providing the general consumer with more assurance on quality.
In the light of those comments, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I may not have been a microbiologist at the start of today but I believe that we shall all be microbiologists by the end of today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the assurance which I sought that implicit in the clause as now worded is the intention of the Government that the highest standards of food will prevail. I hope that that will go some way to satisfying the intention behind this amendment.
However, I shall look in detail at her reply because some of it was rather technical. I shall look particularly at the criticism she made of the drafting of the amendment. In the light of that consideration, it may or may not be necessary for me to return to this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 12, line 27, leave out ("or any class of food").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("as to, and") and insert ("or prohibitions as to, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 12, line 34, after ("descriptions") insert (", including health claims,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 16(1)(e) which is intended to improve the protection of consumers against health claims for food or food products which may be misleading. I am aware that there is already legislation which covers some of the ground and the food labelling regulations of 1984 are useful.
The wording of this paragraph in its current form makes provision for further regulations controlling labelling, marketing, presentation and advertising of food. Health and nutritional claims could well be included in those categories but the words "health", "nutrition" or "claims" are not specifically mentioned. I think that they should be. Certainly the words "health claims", as in my amendment, should be mentioned.
The effect of nutrition and food additives on health is, as I think all Members of the Committee will agree, of increasing public concern. Scientific evidence relating nutrition to a number of our current major health problems such as atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease and cancer is becoming increasingly clear and consistent. That means there is a real need for new regulations on health and nutritional claims to be made and updated as necessary.
A health claim suggests that a particular food product may have a beneficial effect on health generally or on a specific medical condition. The latter needs particular scrutiny. For example, a recent advertisement which many Members of the Committee may have seen had as its caption:
"Worried about osteoporosis? Consult an expert".
The caption appeared above a picture of a milkman delivering milk. In fact, the calcium in milk has no effect on established osteoporosis and the code of advertising practice operated by the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint about that particular claim. The advertisement was subsequently withdrawn but not until it had appeared all over the country. The firm concerned had no penalty imposed upon it.
I am not suggesting that health claims are necessarily bad. They can be extremely useful and can be used as part of a health education campaign. However, it is very wrong if they give false information. By including the words "health claims", I suggest that the Government would give themselves a useful opportunity to revise, improve and bring up to date existing legislation and regulations on a continuing basis to fit in with current and developing scientific knowledge.
If the noble Baroness feels that the words in the clause as it stands cover all the points which I have made and the Government intend to make regulations governing health claims, I should be most
744
grateful if she would say so. How she says that will of course govern what I decide to do on this amendment.
Lord Colwyn: Before the Minister replies, many existing herbal, mineral, vitamin and other food supplements have medicinal health claims and effects which are known and universally accepted. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary as medicinal claims are fully covered by existing medicines legislation and food claims by existing food legislation. The words proposed would cause further problems for the much beleaguered food manufacturers and I hope that they will be rejected.
Baroness Trumpington: I imagine that whatever I say nearly always influences what will happen to an amendment. I was interested to hear the noble Lord. I agree entirely that Ministers should be able to regulate the use of health claims on food labels. However, I assure the noble Lord that that is already achieved by the present wording.
As it stands, the clause allows Ministers to regulate the descriptions which may be applied to food. It is well established that that covers all food claims including health claims. In fact the noble Lord's amendment could weaken the proposed power by casting doubt upon the interpretation of the word "description". While the word is not defined in any way, it is taken to be all embracing. However, if health claims were specifically mentioned, there might be some doubt as to whether other types of claim which were not specifically mentioned were also covered. Moreover, where the word "description" appeared in other legislation without reference to health claims, it would no longer be clear that such claims were covered.
The noble Lord asked me whether the Government were going to cover health claims. Some are already dealt with in labelling requirements. I should like to add that the EC is also about to introduce proposals on claims. I would say that the example given by the noble Lord was obviously wrong, and that it is for the Advertising Standards Authority to point out when false claims are made.
Lord Rea: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Her words reassure me to some extent. I shall have to scrutinise them more carefully when I see Hansard tomorrow, but I thank her very much for her reply. At this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("or any class of food").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("necessary or expedient") and insert ("desirable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to Clause 16. The object of the amendment, again, is, in a sense, to test the views of Ministers on the interpretation of the clause. The words which intrigue us in that clause are those appearing at line 38, "necessary or expedient". Our feeling is that those three words might usefully be replaced by the single word "desirable".
The paragraph contains a reserve power for Ministers to make regulations introducing provisions with respect to food or commercial operations as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of food safety, public health or consumers. Our amendment therefore is intended to test the basis on which the Government would use their new power.
The paragraph leaves considerable discretion in the hands of Ministers who will determine what is necessary and whether action in relation to it is expedient. The word "desirable" would import a presumption in favour of action where food safety, public health or consumers appeared to be at any degree of risk from an activity which might otherwise be regulated. We hope that Ministers will be able to indicate that they can accept this amendment since it may be assumed that powers will be used wherever it is desirable to do so.
Finally, in favour of this modest proposition, perhaps I may say that as it substitutes one word for three words, it should be supported by legislators everywhere. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry, but I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. Clause 16(1)(f) already contains a comprehensive power which allows Ministers to make regulations wherever it is necessary and expedient to protect the public health or the interests of consumers. The Government will not hesitate to use these powers whenever it is necessary or expedient to do so. However, I believe it would be quite inappropriate to allow Ministers complete freedom of action whenever they considered something to be merely desirable. Who would say what was or was not desirable? Such a power would allow regulations to be made almost at a whim, even when they were not necessary.
Despite the fact that I am always in favour of brevity, I fear we shall have to leave the paragraph as it stands.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Before we leave what is desirable and expedient in connection with food sources, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a further question, again concerning the catering industry. In the Bill there appears to be a possibility that food sources will have to be designated on menus and other places where food is processed and served to the public. If that is the case, restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, public houses and other such institutions will be required to say how food had been processed. As it is, when you enter a restaurant, or even a sandwich bar, you obviously take on trust the source of that food. The ingredients may well
746
have been organic, chemically sprayed, frozen, microwaved, pasteurised or even, in due course (depending on what happens later today), irradiated.
The concern of the catering industry in its broadest sense is that if such regulations were thought at any time to be necessary, expedient or, I am glad to say considered by most people as not wholly undesirable, this would have a major effect on a whole section of a large part of the small business industry. I should therefore like to inquire, before we leave this clause altogether, whether it is the Government's intention to incorporate regulations which would interpret the Bill in that manner. If so, that would be very worrying. However, if there is to be full and fair consultation, or if it is not the Government's intention to have such regulations, that would not be a worry.
I have not given the noble Baroness much warning of this question. If she is not able to reply to me immediately, I would not be in the least concerned; and perhaps she can either write to me or we can deal with it at a later time.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sure of the fact that we have given a commitment that we shall include the word "irradiation" on menus in restaurants. With regard to the various other aspects that could possibly be included on menus, it would probably end up by being difficult to see what one was intending to eat. However, we shall be reviewing the matter, and talking to restaurant owners and other interested parties.
We are reviewing labelling requirements in general, and until we have completed that review it would be impossible, apart from my firm commitment on "irradiation", to introduce definitive remarks in answer to my noble friend.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for her response to this amendment, though naturally I am somewhat disappointed by it. The noble Baroness referred to the comprehensive power already scheduled in Clause 16(1)(f) and in effect assured me that Ministers would not hesitate to use those powers. To replace "necessary or expedient" with the word "desirable" could allow Ministers scope for being capricious and to that extent she has perhaps something of a case against the amendment as drafted.
Nevertheless, we must look at this question in some detail—perhaps also in the light of the intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery—because an aspect of this Bill which has hardly been touched upon and which concerns us is the question of enforcement in the catering industry. It covers a very wide spectrum. It is an area where food enforcement is most difficult to regulate. There is —and I say so with due respect to the noble Viscount —a bottom line mentality now in the catering trade, probably spurred by the competition of tourism. All of this might mean that the Bill needs to be stronger in respect of catering than it is in other respects. Nevertheless, we are not opening up that particular question at this stage, but it may be necessary for us to return to it later in

747
the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert —
("1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that all food treated with pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, whether pre-harvest or post-harvest, be labelled as such.").
The noble Viscount said: There has grown up in recent times a great deal of public concern about the use of pesticides in agriculture and in particular about the residues left in food. More and more people are turning to organic produce. This may in some cases be an exaggerated concern, but nevertheless it is a fact. Those who take a particular interest in these things know that, in the absence of a tag stating that a particular vegetable or fruit has been treated with pesticides, it almost certainly has been so treated.
The Government say that consumers should have as much choice as possible. This amendment therefore merely seeks to support the wishes and the aims of the Government in giving the consumer as much choice as possible. This amendment seeks to fulfil that in one way. Nobody is saying that food which has been treated with pesticides should not be sold under any circumstances. If that came about it would create an impossible situation because the whole of our agricultural system is geared to that end at the present time. People should have the right to make an informed decision for themselves. The motivation behind our amendment is that at present people do not have enough information on which to base these important decisions.
To those who say that pesticide residues do not matter one can only say that a growing number of people show an enormous amount of concern about them. Labels already have to show the contents of tiny amounts of additives, colouring agents, emulsifiers and so on, and quite rightly so. Why then are the public not told that the food that they are buying may well contain the residues of products which have a function basically to destroy living organisms?
It has been argued —and it may be that the noble Baroness will continue to argue —that pesticides present no problem whatever. However, there are one or two recent cases that have been brought to my attention which show cause for concern. A confidential report was produced by MAFF's own advisers and, not surprisingly, it was not published. A report in the Guardian in the summer of 1988 referred to a health hazard to man which some pesticides are likely to pose. In a famous phrase the subject was referred to rather alarmingly as "bucket and shovel techniques" which are commonly supposed to be used to apply pesticides after harvesting. The report stated that as a result consumers may well be exposed to higher dosages than those which had been formerly suspected. Such residues could present a health hazard. We feel that some statutory control should be enacted to limit exposure to pesticides.
A television programme in the "Facing South" series revealed that in 1988 1,500 tonnes of tomatoes and thousands of lettuces had been destroyed because inspectors found that they had been sprayed only a day before harvesting. A report prepared by Friends of the Earth revealed that 43 individual pesticides were recorded as having been applied to glasshouse lettuces. One crop received 46 treatments involving four individual pesticides.
Recently, in the United States, tests have been carried out on population samples. Detectable DDT related residues were found in the blood of 60 per cent. of the people tested though DDT had been outlawed in 1971. Despite assurances emanating from the Ministry and other quarters, besides what has appeared in the media and elsewhere, there are considerable doubts about pesticides in food among members of the public. The pesticides may or may not be a health hazard: I am not saying that they definitely are. However, what is clear is that a growing number of people wish to make a choice. They should be informed to an extent where they can make a proper choice. They cannot do that at the moment —a situation which my amendment is intended to correct.
In a survey carried out in the mid-eighties —I do not have anything more recent than that —86 per cent. of a sample of consumers in Britain said that if they had the choice they would pay more for foods free of the chemicals about which there is increasing concern. Since this majority is likely to increase rather than decrease I wish to give people the chance to have what they clearly want. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I suggest to the Committee and to the noble Viscount that neither this amendment nor Amendments Nos. 70, 71 or 72 are necessary. More importantly, they are not appropriate on the face of the Bill. The matters involve detailed labelling issues and as such they are under discussion, or already part of, the EC food labelling directive. It is also relevant to say that currently a UK food advisory committee review of food labelling is taking place. That is where these matters should be dealt with. I do not believe that we should spend too much time on these amendments.
The Viscount of Falkland: Perhaps I may be permitted to respond to the noble Lord. I intended to make some remarks on that very subject in relation to the last amendment I shall move in this group. That amendment refers to the type of legislation being used and although I have no particular objection to discussing this on the present amendment what I have to say on the subject of irradiation will be dealt with in connection with Amendment No. 73. I shall wish at that stage to take up the points which the noble Lord has raised.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: In addition to what has been said there are other valid points that need to be made in support of the noble Viscount. The labelling situation in this country is unsatisfactory. The public are confused at the lack of standardisation. They want to follow recommended guidelines for healthy eating, for the prevention of

749
heart disease, and so on. However, at the moment they do not have the necessary nutritional information on the food in shops on which they can base a choice. Also as the noble Viscount said, the public wish to be able to avoid substances in their food which may disagree with them.
Under present regulations and over quite a large area the public can avoid such substances. But there are gaps which are made more serious as new information comes to light. These gaps need to be plugged and I believe that that can be done. I am not convinced that we need to wait for the EC or anyone else. Some of the gaps are targeted in these amendments. I wish to say something about Amendment No. 69.
As the noble Viscount said, there is growing concern about the kinds of agent referred to in this amendment. Anything that ends with "cide" is in the business of killing. And that is not good for life. It is as unreasonable to believe that such substances do no harm to humans as it is to assume that acid rain only harms plant life. All these matters to which we are exposed add up. The argument that the doses are too small to do harm is less and less tenable.
There are well-documented cases of people who have suffered from exposure to these agents. I wish to amplify what the noble Viscount said. I have read that one independent review of scientific literature found that of 426 pesticide ingredients approved by MAFF, no fewer than 124 were known or suspected to have links with cancer, genetic damage, allergies or irritations of some kind.
The Select Committee in another place investigating pesticides and human health had some sharp things to say in 1987 about the degree of risk and the lack of official response to it. We believe that the Government's advisers are well aware of the potential danger from residues in food. They all add up to a cocktail of noxious substances to which we are increasingly exposed. It is right that consumers should be able to avoid any agents which they wish to avoid. That can only be achieved through proper labelling.
The Government accept the need to label food if it has been affected by irradiation, which is a supposedly harmless process. I hope that they will agree the need to label pesticides, fungicides and herbicides which have a potential for harm.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of course there is anxiety about these matters and both noble Lords are right to highlight it and to give illustrations. I do not know whether either of them has studied how food is created and what the implications will be with labelling of this kind. It would mean that every field that was sown with wheat for bread, with vegetables or potatoes, would have to be hoed by a row of people in a line. That is a slow business and it could be done only in dry weather. It would be enormously expensive. We are not talking about gardening in the back yard. We are talking about the growing of food for the nation. The price of food would escalate enormously. I do not know whether my noble friend has the figures but I am sure prices would increase by a factor of six, seven, eight, nine
750
or ten if no weed killers were used in growing food. It would be enormously expensive.
We talk about choice and we are right to do so. In many instances in this Bill I quite agree that labelling is the way forward. But labelling every item of food which had been treated with a pesticide, a fungicide or a herbicide at some stage —when it was sown, while it was growing or after it was harvested —would mean that almost no foods without such labels would be available, except those which well-off people could pay for. It would put labelling into disrepute. People would begin to disregard it. It is not practical to do that at this stage.
I am sure that my noble friend will tell us about the way pesticides are tested and monitored. We must do everything we can scientifically to ensure that farmers do not put harmful substances on the crops. We all know that there comes a moment when something put on crops is proved to be harmful, but this amendment is completely impracticable. When noble Lords bring forward amendments of this kind they should think out the implications of their being agreed to. It is probably perfectly true that if one asked 86 per cent. of people or even a larger sample whether they would like to have something which has never met any of these chemicals they would say that they were willing to pay more, but they are thinking of paying 2p, 5p or 10p more. They are not thinking of the price of bread increasing sixfold or tenfold. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: It is important in discussing the amendment to consider the technical point of the status of the scientific protocols concerned in the measurement of residue levels. This is extremely important to manufacturers, farmers and consumers. The Minister will be familiar with the example of oilseed rape. The EC introduced a change in the subsidy rules which meant that there was a maximum level, measured in micromoles, of glucosinalates. This affected the subsidy. But there was no agreement about the way in which this should be measured. It is important for the Minister to explain to the Chamber—perhaps she may need to write to me afterwards —exactly how the Government intend to deal with the status of the scientific protocols in determining the levels of the residue.
The Earl of Radnor: I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment. If I were cynical I think I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that if he wants choice he can almost assume that everything has been sprayed in one way or another except those things he finds on the shelf which positively say that they have not been.
On a less facetious note, the impracticality of the suggestion must be borne in mind. I have only two suggestions to make in this connection. Let us suppose that a crop of wheat is sprayed for aphids soon before harvest. It then goes into the grain store and is mixed up with wheat that has not been sprayed for aphids. It then goes to the miller and finally goes into a loaf of bread. What labelling is one to put on

751
the loaf of bread? Another example, more up my own street, concerns a pond of fish among, say, 200 ponds of fish. It has a little diffusion in the water to kill an external parasite. Trout are graded the whole time, so the treated fish are mixed with the untreated fish. The mixing and remixing process goes on until eventually they go to harvest, when they would be rather hard to label and identify. To put it crudely, this proposal is pie in the sky. I hope that it will be strongly resisted.
Lord Colwyn: I do not wish to prolong the debate but I feel strongly on this point. Only a small number of pesticides cause the greatest hazard to health. Although I may not be up to date with current regulations, I know it has been suggested that the three petrochemical compounds, the herbicide Linuron and the insecticides Chlorodineform and Permethrin, should be banned. The problem at present is that one cannot tell whether the product contains an excessive quanity of pesticide without this clear labelling obligation.
In May 1987 the Committee of the American Academy of Sciences thought that an incidence of 5·8 cases of cancer per thousand was a likely forecast for people consuming food which had been treated with these pesticides. There can be no better argument for selecting organically grown fruit and vegetables, particularly if they have some other seal of approval. Foods, herbs and spices imported from overseas are also often heavily contaminated and are rarely checked for pesticide residues. The laboratory equipment at our ports —I look forward to hearing whether or not the Minister can confirm this —is so outdated that it takes 10 to 14 days to arrive at a proper analysis, by which time the food is bad.
In view of the comments we have heard, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and hope that she will look favourably on the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I am most grateful to my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Radnor for their helpful remarks and I was interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colwyn. He mentioned en passant organically grown food. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to choice. There is choice. A consumer can buy organically grown food, as marked in the shops. Perhaps I may remind him that there is as yet no test to prove that the food has been organically grown.
This proposal raises an important and difficult issue, although I believe it is unnecessary. Clause 16(1)(e) provides Ministers with wide-ranging powers to require or regulate the labelling of food. Ministers could therefore make regulations covering pesticide treatments. While Ministers obviously believe strongly in informative labelling, the issue of pesticide treatments is extremely complicated. It is currently being considered both by the EC and by the Food Advisory Committee. It would be premature at this stage to pre-empt the outcome of their deliberations.
I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the status of scientific protocols. We must be
752
careful not to confuse or mislead the consumer. This proposal would have wide implications since it would mean that pesticides used at every stage of cultivation, even before emergence of a crop, would have to be shown on the label of the final product. Yet three-quarters of the volume of pesticides used in this country are herbicides —weed killers —which do not leave any residues in food.
A less sweeping approach would be to label only those pesticides applied after harvest. This is the approach adopted by the European Commission in a proposal relating to fruit and vegetables. Even this needs careful thought. Could it be enforced? The point raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor was a good one. Given that pesticides can be applied by a multiplicity of handlers at several stages of the food chain, one asks oneself whether it could be enforced. We must bear in mind that no one test determines whether or not pesticides have been applied. Instead, hundreds of tests will be necessary, one for each potential pesticide.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked how much the proposal would cost. Has the noble Viscount any idea? Has he contemplated the consequences for farming and the food industry of logging all uses of pesticides named in the proposal and tying them to the final product through the entire distribution chain? Certainly the Government will have to consider fully the heavy burdens such a requirement would place before reaching a conclusion.
Perhaps I may now reassure those noble Lords who are worried about pesticide residues in food. The Government carry out regular monitoring of our food, both home produced and imported, the results are published and they show that residues are at a low and entirely safe level. Moreover, pesticides can only be used in this country if they have first been approved by a rigorous statutory scheme which ensures the safety of consumers.
Finally, the noble Viscount referred to a confidential report of MAFF which was published in the Guardian. Perhaps I should say that he should have referred to what was said in that article.
The Viscount of Falkland: We have had a most useful debate on this subject and one which was refreshingly non-party political in content. I have listened with enormous interest to all the views expressed from the other side of the Chamber. Moreover, I take on board many of the points raised, especially those in connection with the difficulties. Of course I realise the difficulties in taking this process to its ultimate conclusion and I appreciate the vision of rows of ladies with hoes progressing down the field, as given by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I quite take her point.
However, by way of this amendment we are asking that all the necessary actions should be taken. Of course what is proposed is not easy; it is complicated. Further, my amendment may be imperfect and impractical. I am not a fanatic in these matters; indeed, I am probably one of the more cavalier people as regards my eating habits, since I have suffered food poisoning four times and have also had hepatitis. Nevertheless, I take seriously the concerns

753
which many people have about the number of chemicals and residues which are left in food. I realise the difficulties in dealing with the problem. However, I shall not pursue the matter and propose to withdraw the amendment. I think that we have had a useful debate and I daresay there will be further such debates on the subject in the future. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that the exemption from labelling requirements enjoyed by beverages where the alcoholic content is above 3 per cent. be annulled.").
The noble Viscount said: At this stage perhaps I may preface my remarks by putting forward my response to the interjection during the discussion on the last amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Tedious though it may be, it is important that my amendments under Clause 16 should follow one another. Of course, there is a good reason for that process. We on these Benches feel quite strongly that such primary legislation —and not just that confined to this Bill —is often dealt with in a way which would be more suitable for secondary legislation. As I said when I responded intitially to the last amendment, and I say it again in connection with this one, I should have thought that it could perfectly properly be dealt with by the Government through regulation.
However, there are matters which we shall come to that are not best dealt with in that way. Indeed, I was interested to see today that there is a debate which has been tabled by a member of the noble Baroness's party who is a distinguished Member of this place, on the way that legislation is dealt with in this Chamber. That implies that there is a feeling, even on the other side of the Chamber, that too much importance is put upon the use of regulation to bring in matters of this kind and also more serious matters. I apologise if the process is a lengthy one, especially when we are hoping to finish the Committee stage of the Bill today.
I turn now to Amendment No. 70. It deals with the anomaly in this country where labelling requirements so far as concerns alcoholic drinks are not consistent with other labelling requirements. Over many years the Government have accepted that consumers have every right to know what additives are present in the food which they buy. The Food Advisory Committee has accepted that among a certain percentage of the population there is an undesirable reaction, whether it be serious or not so serious, to the additive tartrazine. I do not wish to delve any further into the chemistry of such matters, but leaving aside the question of whether that particular additive should or should not be allowed, at least those who suffer such reactions and those who know about such matters can make an informed choice and avoid buying products which
754
contain tartrazine if they wish. However, no such choice is open to consumers of alcoholic beverages.
I have a reaction to certain wines. They happen to be cheap and red. I do not wish to malign Italian restaurants, but usually such wines are to be found in those establishments. I do not know why I get a headache and a feeling of irritability—which, I should add, I do not have now—but it seems to me that it is not the alcoholic content because I do not drink a lot of it. However, there is clearly something in the wine to which I have a reaction. In my view many people suffer such reactions.
I am not myself a beer drinker, but I am told by those who drink beer that headaches are suffered by people who drink beer but that this does not often happen in respect of German beers. That suggests, since German beer is generally free of additives, that it must logically be because of an additive in our beer. Therefore, for one reason or another many people are becoming extremely sensitive to what they buy and are not quite sure how to go about it. Thus there is a kind of hit and miss activity among consumers.
I am also told that there is a pretty high level of additives in beer. Moreover, colouring matter which I understand is derived from caramel —which is an E factor —is permitted in beer. I am informed that the level is two-and-a-half times that permitted to be put in bread. There is also another important point in this connection. I refer to the increased public awareness of additives in food which was discussed during the debate on the last amendment. It has led to consumer pressure for a reduction in the number of additives. This has been successful and has not been to the detriment —at least I do not think so—of the quality of the products, nor has it affected their profitability.
However, I do not think that any of us knows what reductions have taken place as regards additive levels in beer and wine, if indeed there have been any. So far as I know this situation has persisted for some time. In my case I still suffer the same reaction if I am foolish enough to drink certain red wines in Italian restaurants. People are denied the relevant information to which I think they are entitled. Therefore, in moving this amendment I am seeking to assist them. There is no doubting the fact that people are allergic to certain ingredients. Moreover, they have to go through a long and painstaking process to find out what substances affect them. It seems that alcoholic drinks quite often contain the guilty factor in this connection.
Again in this respect I suggest to the noble Baroness that the exemptions so far as concerns alcoholic drinks are not logical. They do not conform to the Government's expressed views about giving choice to and satisfying the interests of the consumer. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: So far as concerns alcoholic beverages, in my view it is just as important that they should be labelled as anything else that we eat or drink. As has already been pointed out, it is a handicap to people who react adversely to drinks not to be able to tell whether their problem

755
is the alcohol itself or some agent put in by the manufacturer or, if they find out, not to be sure of avoiding the drinks that make them ill.
I shall digress for just a moment. It is interesting to note that one of the pioneers in food allergy in this country, Dr. Richard Mackarness, who wrote the well-known book Not All In The Mind, has recently been working in Australia on alcoholism, which he often finds to be a manifestation of allergy —that is, a craving for the substance to which you react. He has discovered that people react to individual brands of beer or spirits and therefore he has to know which brand they habitually drink. With whisky it may be the grain that is the trouble. People allergic to wheat or corn can have trouble with Scotch Rye or Bourbon. There is not a great deal that they can do about that.
When it comes to the less essential activities about which we are talking —it is good to note that the Government are now outlawing colourings in table wines, for which we are grateful —the customer needs the full information. If he receives it and does his sums, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will find that after two pints of stout he will already have exceeded the daily recommended intake of caramel colouring E 150.
I have heard a whisper that with the amendment we may be pushing at a half-open door. I hope that I am not misinformed about that and that the Minister will look favourably on this logical step in our labelling laws. I support the amendment.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: First, even if some of these ingredients or additives were mentioned on wine bottles, I do not believe that most consumers would be any the wiser. Secondly, I should be happy to advise the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, outside the Chamber on his wine consumption so that he can improve his habits.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wonder whether it has occurred to those who tabled the amendment that there is an increasing consumption of low-alcohol and no-alcohol beverages which are called wine and beer. Reading the amendment, one must of course remember (must one not?) that those beverages are not made in the ordinary way without alcohol but in the ordinary way with the alcohol and the alcohol is then taken out. If the amendment were accepted in the form in which it is drafted, one would have all the bad E factors in low-alcohol and no-alcohol wine and low-alcohol and no-alcohol beer as one would if they were fully alcoholic. I should rather take my poison with the alcohol.
Lord Colwyn: I am sure that that is a cogent point. If, for example, one is an asthmatic and sensitive to sulphur dioxide, which is E 220, commonly used in wines, beer and cider as a preservative, one has no way of telling whether it is present or how much there is. People with other allergies cannot tell whether a drink contains something that they do not like. It is almost impossible for an analyst, without great expense, to see that such products contain only
756
permitted ingredients, because there is no yardstick on the label with which to compare the analytical data.
Recent tests by the Dutch consumer organisation and by Which? magazine found that many wines were near the maximum permitted limit. If one drank a quarter of a litre (two glasses) of white wine or one-third of a litre of red wine (about three glasses) one could exceed the acceptable daily intake. Unless there is the safeguard of labelling on alcoholic drinks, disastrous and dangerous episodes such as the Austrian wine scandal are certain to happen again. The Committee will remember that the contaminant was diethylene glycol, which can improve the flavour of cheap wine; and 0.33 cc daily of that contaminant is a potential hazard, and 100 cc is fatal.
There is no reason why responsible manufacturers should not voluntarily tell us what is in their drinks, and I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: It has been a most interesting debate. This type of detail is inappropriate for the Bill. It is in any case not possible for the United Kingdom unilaterally to make the changes proposed since food labelling legislation in general, and the labelling of wines and spirits in particular, is harmonised throughout the European Community. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 applied to alcoholic drinks, although those exceeding 1·2 per cent. ABV (alcohol by volume) are currently exempt from declaring ingredients and those of 10 per cent. ABV or more, together with wine, cider and beer in bulk containers, are exempt from date marking.
The European Commission should shortly be making proposals to require ingredient listing, including additives, of alcoholic drinks. We shall give those proposals careful consideration, taking account of the views of interested parties. I know that consumer groups are keen to have such requirements. I understand their concerns. The Community has already said that alcoholic drinks of 10 per cent. ABV and above should be exempt from the date-marking provisions. There is logic in that exemption. The Committee will undoubtedly be aware that alcohol is a well-recognised preservative. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will feel able to withdraw their amendment in the light of those explanations.
The Viscount of Falkland: It has again been an interesting debate. I sense a pleasing invitation from the noble Viscount opposite which I shall gladly take up. He will introduce me to expensive wines which have no after-effects. I feel remiss for not having mentioned no-alcohol and low-alcohol beers, being myself vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Alcohol Services Group. It is right that to remove the alcohol and leave all the things about which we are complaining would not be satisfactory. I take on board what the Minister has said. I shall take back this matter and look at it, but at this stage I should like to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert —
("(1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that any product which contains mechanically recovered meat be so labelled.").
The noble Viscount said: Mechanically recovered meat is produced by putting animal bones into a special machine which pulverises them. The bones are stripped of all meat and gristle. Great pressure is used, and the result is commonly called slurry, a word which conjures up unpleasant pictures. The meat is completely unrecognisable as meat. It is possible for bone fragments to slip through the process. We feel that the produce should be labelled as such for various reasons, the main reason being that it is a change from the way meat has been traditionally prepared.
Before the advent of the technology and the use of such meat, the residues would have gone to what is popularly known as the knacker's yard. The resulting slurry, as is suggested, is broken down so thoroughly that it is often biologically unstable, with consequent possible nutritional implications.
I can give an interesting illustration of the position which my amendment addresses. Shropshire County Council believes that the EC food labelling directive requires mechanically recovered meat to be labelled. In a test case in 1988, the county council took Mr. Bernard Matthews, trading as Matthews Norfolk Farms, to court on that issue and won at Telford magistrates' court. His products now bear a label which states that mechanically recovered meat is included. Other companies argue that that decision does not apply to them. They have clearly obtained an advantage which might be deemed to be unfair.
The Government continually claim that their policies are based on true, accurate and informative labelling. In those circumstances, I should not have thought that they could have a great deal of objection to my amendment. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: There have been regulations governing meat products since July 1986 and there is a list of the parts of the carcass which may not be used in uncooked meat products. But the unacceptable, uncooked bits are permitted in cooked meat products. I shall not list the bits, as that may put Members of the Committee off ever eating a pre-cooked meat pie again.
However, there has to be an argument for manufacturers to tell us just what parts of the animal are used and how much. The true nature of the ingredients is disguised in taste and appearance by the use of flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate. Responsible food manufacturers are now labelling the fat content of meat products voluntarily, which I gather is opposed by the EC. I do not see why, in deference to the many pie manufacturers who use the finest ingredients, the contents of a meat product should not be clearly labelled.
Lord Lyell: Can the noble Viscount please enlighten me and many other Members of the Committee? How does he reconcile what he said in support of his amendment about, I think he called it, slurry —that is the bones and, I presume, the interior of bones, which would include marrow and other such products —with meat? He and I and perhaps all other consumers in your Lordships' House would understand that. I quite understand "meat products" since many of the items that might have been mentioned by the noble Viscount —for instance bones, crushed products and the attractively named slurry —might go into such forms of meat products as pate and other substances.
What the noble Viscount mentioned as recovered from bones in crushing and other similar processes would not appear to me, or, I suggest, to other Members of the Committee apart from the scientific experts like my noble friend Lord Colwyn, as meat, let alone mechanically recovered meat. Can he possibly enlighten me?
The Viscount of Falkland: I do not think that I can enlighten the noble Lord. I have taken the trouble to ask experts to explain to me what happens. To the amateur and the layman it is a fairly stomach-turning description of what happens to meat of this kind. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, was on the verge of telling us about it but withdrew.
As I understand it, what happens with this process is that the bones are stripped of all meat that is not used for other purposes. The process is very efficient. The marketing of meat nowadays is a sophisticated business; it has to do with colour, presentation and so on. The meat which is not used, which often includes gristle and other substances such as bone fragments —I mentioned that in passing and rather wish that I had not —is made into what is described as a slurry for want of a better word. It is known in the trade as mechanically recovered meat. That is all I can say to the noble Lord. I shall go again to my advisers when I feel strong enough, get a full exposition and tell the Committee what I have discovered.
Baroness Trumpington: Once again I believe that this kind of detail is inappropriate in the Bill. 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.
Clause 15(1) strengthens the existing general provisions on misleading labelling by making it an offence to describe food in a way which,
"is likely to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the food".
In addition, 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. Any treatment has to be declared if its omission would be misleading.
I believe that these provisions should ensure that products containing MRM are not labelled misleadingly. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed and I am extremely grateful to both noble

759
Lords for not going into the details. I shall continue to keep a close watch on this area. However, MRM is a substance that is perhaps better dealt with by an industry code of practice rather than by regulations. I understand that trading standards officers and industry representatives are currently in the process of drawing up guidelines on the labelling of MRM. I hope therefore that the noble Lords will feel able in the light of this information to withdraw their amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I have learnt something from this exchange as I hope other Members of the Committee have. I do not intend to press the amendment. This is a new situation which needs to be examined both by the Government and those who seek to tighten up safeguards. For the time being and under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert —
("(1A) In making regulations under subsection (I) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that frozen foods be clearly labelled to provide information in respect of use-by dates, and defrosting and cooking times as recommended by the retail producers.").
The noble Viscount said: The Government have correctly recognised the behaviour of the modern consumer and the way in which he or she cooks food. The manner in which that is done is very important for maintaining its safety. If more people cooked food in the correct way I suggest that there would be less trouble and fewer cases of food poisoning. The person who cooks is the last line of protection. I welcome the production by the Government of a very helpful booklet which attempted to emphasise good cooking practices, as in other areas they have produced useful booklets for doctors on alcohol and so on.
We know that far too much food on sale contains potentially dangerous bacteria. Some of it is inevitable but much is a result of the failures which take place further down the food chain. Proper cooking can be expected to eliminate the vast majority of bacterial problems. In another place the Minister used a phrase which I liked very much in these days of modern language: everything should be cooked until it is piping hot throughout. That may be a trifle poetic for modern usage; there may be a more scientific description which would please some people. However, I like "piping hot". I know what it means and I hope that young people know what it means. The trouble is that people do not always cook food thoroughly and they suffer the consequences.
Often a simple failure to follow instructions is dangerous. Curiously enough I am told that women, who traditionally in our society have cooked the most, follow the instructions least. Men tend, maybe because they are new to it, to follow instructions to the letter. But sometimes the instructions which they need in order to cook the food properly are just not there.
My amendment talks of frozen food. One of the most common frozen foods is chicken, which has been very much in the news during the past 18 months. We learn, and most people know now, that some 60 per cent. of specimens of this bird show the presence of salmonella. I believe that chicken is one of the most common causes of food poisoning. When I recently went to India for the first time, as somebody who is sensitive in this area I avoided all chicken and had no problem at all. That is purely anecdotal to my case.
Clearly action is needed to eradicate the salmonella in the first place. I acknowledge the very determined way in which the Government are approaching the problem. But surely what we can do now and where the Government should show the way is to ensure that frozen foods show the use-by dates rather than the sell-by dates. They should clearly show the manufacturers' recommended defrosting and cooking times. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: One cannot repeat too often the fact that food should be properly cooked right through. The words "piping hot" are as good an instruction as the words "reheat frozen food". Chicken in particular should always be thoroughly cooked. As a good housewife, I know that.
I recognise the need for frozen foods to carry any defrosting or cooking instructions. However, a general provision requiring this to be printed on the label where necessary is already contained in food labelling regulations. While frozen foods are among a very small group of products currently exempt from date-marking rules, the latest changes to the Community labelling directive will remove this exemption and frozen foods will be required to carry a best-before date. This change will be implemented in UK legislation shortly. As food labelling legislation is harmonised throughout the Community, we cannot deviate from EC rules or act unilaterally in this area. I am satisfied that the purposes of this amendment are already covered in legislation and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. We have well aired the subject. All interested parties are taking steps to obtain further knowledge on it. I am sure the Government have all these matters well in hand. This matter will be carefully watched by consumers in the ensuing months and years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A). Any regulation made under subsection (1)(c) above which relates to irradiation shall only be made after —

(a) a diagnostic test has been established to determine whether or not food has been subject to irradiation;

(b) an independent scientific review has been conducted into the effects of irradiation on pesticide residues and other toxins in food, vitamin content of food, food additives and food packaging materials, and the results thereof published.").

The noble Viscount said: I am relieved to be able to say that this is the last amendment that I shall move in this group. I view this amendment as the most important one in the group and it is the reason that the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, are presented in the way that I have explained.
The issue of irradiation is perhaps the most emotive one in this matter of food safety. It turned up in the debate on Second Reading and there is a good deal of uncertainty in the Chamber about it, let alone on the streets outside the Palace of Westminster and world-wide. I do not wish to explain in too great detail the subject of irradiation, mainly because the Select Committee of this Chamber has produced a report on this subject. The report is a good and interesting one, as is usually the case. It will be discussed shortly.
I wish, however, to give some of the background to my thinking to explain why I have drawn up this amendment in the way I have. It is necessary to give a short definition of irradiation at this stage. I can do no better than take a sentence used in the report of the Select Committee which gives a succinct definition of irradiation. I think many people are unsure of what irradiation is. The report states:
"Ionising radiation is a form of energy. The energy is transmitted into food by the application of gamma-rays from a radioactive source or accelerated electrons or X-rays from a machine".
I need go no further. That is the technology of the matter. Some people refer to it as soft nuclear technology. It is not new technology; it has been used for a number of years but in exclusive areas. In recent times people have wished to improve standards of food safety within the seemingly widening area of food poisoning. For this very laudable reason Her Majesty's Government have decided to pay attention to this new process and give the consumer the choice of having irradiated foods.
Irradiation has considerable effects on food. It kills a lot of bacteria. However, irradiation is in its early days and the public and scientists are becoming increasingly concerned —not only the British public but the public around the world —about the possible effects of irradiation. No one is saying at this stage that the treatment of foodstuffs by the level of radiation that is used is unsafe. The level of radiation is quite safe but we are concerned that the changes which take place in the molecular chain within the food could have effects that we are not yet fully aware of.
Experiments which have taken place recently in Canada, India and the United States show the effects on animals of eating irradiated foods. It will possibly horrify the Committee to know that in India experiments were carried out on children suffering from malnutrition. Staple foodstuffs were treated by the irradiation process over a period of weeks and given to the children. In the Indian experiment scientists refused to continue the experiment after seven weeks as they had noticed that important chromosome changes had taken place. It was claimed that that effect was due to the falling nutritional values of irradiated food.
No one denies that that occurs. I am told that the vitamin content of irradiated food can fall by as much as 30 per cent. Often it is necessary to supplement irradiated food with added vitamins. That is by the by, but the interesting fact is that after a cautious acceptance of this process in various parts of the world, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to name but a few countries, there has now been a turnaround in the scientific viewpoint. Scientists no longer have the confidence in irradiated foods tha1 they once showed I suggest to the Committee that Her Majesty's Government still show that confidence in irradiated foods.
Last night a programme was broadcast on Channel 4 in which concerns were expressed by various scientists from around the world on this subject. Admittedly it was an edited programme, and perhaps the government spokesman on the programme would not have made the remarks he did in the presence of other people. He probably did not know what was in the rest of the programme. However, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I must say that the programme was an example of a phenomenon which occurs so often these days in government circles whereby anyone who disagrees with the Government's present view is regarded as either cranky or a troublemaker. I do not think that the scientists who spoke on that programme or those whom I have quoted from in the various papers that I have are cranky.
A professor is carrying out long-term experiments in this country by adding different bacteria to foods and putting them through the irradiation process. His concern is increasing daily. I get irritated by the way people are lumped together and told that because they disagree with the Government they are not acceptable in some way. This has happened to doctors, to bank managers recently and certainly to Conservative Members of the European Parliament. Now it appears that scientists who disagree with the Government's view on irradiation are viewed as troublemakers or cranks. We are used to that and we can brush that kind of thing aside. However, that was my concern when I replied to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Mottistone: I specifically did not address this amendment when I spoke earlier. My question to the noble Viscount related to an earlier amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I apologise to the noble Lord if I was wrong; I thought that he referred to the whole group of amendments.
It seems to us that at this stage it is inappropriate to proceed with a process such as this which has implications for safety and about which concerns are growing daily. In recent laboratory experiments in the United States, which I am happy to say have been carried out on animals, it has been shown that irradiation of food fed to laboratory animals, mostly rats, has produced very alarming results, such as the death of complete litters of rats.
It is far too early to say whether or not that has any real meaning. But it seems to noble Lords on these Benches to be no reason to go ahead. Nor is it

763
a reason to suggest that this particular process can be offered to the consumer as an option for the treatment of foods generally or for it to be introduced through regulation.
If the process is to be introduced in that way we feel that the least that we can do is to ask the Government to accept my amendment, which seeks two specific safeguards. One is that a diagnostic test should be available so that food which has been irradiated can be detected. Nobody is suggesting that there will be widespread chicanery in this country. However, there have been several well-recorded cases of shipments of food, mainly of shellfish, which has not passed health requirements being taken to irradiation plants in Holland and then shipped to another port and sold. That is why the current slang for putting a vitiated product through the process is "Dutching" the product. There are several well recorded cases of that procedure.
Baroness Trumpington: Will the noble Viscount tell me where the information on those well-recorded cases is to be found?
The Viscount of Falkland: I do not want to detain the Committee. I have pages of cases here. I could provide them to the Minister outside the Chamber or if the Committee will bear with me I could do so now. I have several examples of such cases. For the convenience of the Committee I suggest to the noble Baroness that when I respond at the end of the debate I produce that information for her.
Baroness Trumpington: Does the noble Viscount not even have a heading to indicate where those reports come from? A report is usually produced by somebody. I do not ask him to read the reports but just to give the sources.
The Viscount of Falkland: I have the sources here and, if I may, I shall produce them when I rise to speak later.
The concern about the need for the diagnostic test is growing. It would have the effect of deterring those who feel that they can treat foods in that way. The marketing of food worldwide is a sophisticated business. A diagnostic test would allow us to be absolutely certain whether or not food imported into this country or into any country had been irradiated.
The second part of the amendment stems from the fact that we feel that it is not desirable at this stage to proceed with the introduction of irradiated food until there has been an independent scientific survey. One of the characteristics of the recent history of the process has been that, almost without exception, the studies worldwide which have approved the process have been held behind closed doors. The studies which have shown cause for concern about the process have been public inquiries in the majority of cases, and action has been taken as a result of that concern.
We shall have every opportunity to debate the matter more thoroughly when the Select Committee report is debated soon. At this stage I should like to emphasise that we are most concerned that there
764
should be a diagnostic test and an independent survey before the Government think of introducing or furthering the future of the process and bringing it nearer to the consumer. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The question of irradiation of food is probably the most contentious issue in this area at present. There is a huge amount of unease about it among the public as well as an accumulated distrust of official assurances over a wide range of environmental subjects. For that reason it is only right that there should be full discussion of the pros and cons during the passage of the Bill. That, among other things, is what the amendment sets out to achieve.
Before dealing with the arguments I should like to say a few words about the brief which has just been put out by the Ministry. In that respect I echo some of what the noble Viscount said when moving the motion, although he was speaking about the television programme.
I should describe the brief as a hectoring and evangelical document. Whenever I see that degree of over-the-top enthusiasm for some new process about which there is scope for genuine debate I smell a rat. I take exception to being told that my main objective is to "maximise public alarm". I can tell the Government that three important independent committees, not none, have recently doubted the complete safety of irradiated food. Ironically, the heading to the section in the brief which makes those charges uses the words "bogus arguments". Enough of that for the present.
We do not seek to ban irradition. We say, please do some more work on it; tell us what you find before bringing forward any proposals for further debate. We say that for the following reasons. I feel that I must go into some of them here even though there will be further opportunities to consider them when we debate the Select Committee's report in two-and-a-half weeks' time.
There are a number of doubts which the majority of scientists agree have not been resolved. The chief doubts are listed in our Amendment No. 73. As the noble Viscount said, the fear is of the chemical changes which irradiation produces in food, with the attendant dangers to long-term health to which the British Medical Association continues to draw attention. Effectively, in those cases irradiation has the status of a multiple unknown additive.
Vitamin loss is another worry acknowledged by all, but I believe underrated by many. Not only will there be loss of vitamins but also of amino acids and essential fatty acids whose exact role is still being explored by researchers. Those losses will be additional to the losses caused by other processes and by prolonged shelf-life.
There seems to be no agreement on dosage. As always, different countries have widely differing standards. Our proposed 10 kilogray limit is 10 times what the Americans allow. What is safe? We clearly do not know for sure. It appears that the dosage which is effective in doing its job alters the taste of the food, sometimes even for the better. In that case how can you tell what it is that you are eating, and how fresh it is?

765
Significantly there is argument about how effective irradiation is in destroying what it is intended to destroy. Some hazards it can eliminate; others, like certain viruses and toxins, it cannot. It seems that none of the recent and much publicised outbreaks of food poisoning would have been prevented by irradiation. There is uncertainty about what it can kill just as there is about what it can create.
In view of all this —and I could have gone into some of these points at much greater length —it is very hard to see how the weight of evidence for the safety of this process can be described as "overwhelming" —the word used in, among other places, your Lordships' Select Committee report which has just appeared. In my view the word is contradicted in the same paragraph, paragraph 142, by the call for further research into the specific areas set out in our amendment.
In spite of what may be claimed, there have simply not been the studies on whole populations which would enable one to say with confidence that there was no long-term risk to health. The number of people who have actually been exposed even to a limited range of irradiated foods throughout the world is quite small, and in that sense the process is still experimental. If this is true in terms of research into food processes —which seems to be the frame of reference adopted here —it is even more true in terms of mainstream medical research where, for example with new drugs, far stricter criteria apply.
This is why I prefer the stance adopted by the BMA, who quite, clearly state:
"We simply do not have the toxicological and epidemiological data with which to formulate policy on this issue."
One would wish that by now this precautionary approach had become the norm in this country, and that the gradual greening of the Government —which is much to be welcomed —would include a swifter process of learning the lessons of environmental rashness of the past. After all at one point the weight of evidence for the safety of thalidomide was thought overwhelming.
Opinion polls have shown that the great majority of consumers do not want irradiation. Interestingly, the more they know about it the less they want it. The movement is towards food that has been interfered with as little as possible. The same is true in Sweden, among other places. There, above all, what the pople want is their food fresh. The response of the Swedish Government is to say, "If people want their food fresh, they shall have it fresh. Irradiation and freshness do not go together. We will therefore not allow irradiation".
The response of the British Government is quite different. Can they be surprised when people say, as increasingly they do say, "Whose side are you on?" The least that the Government can do is to meet public opinion half way along the lines of the present amendment. I am surprised that the Government should think that they can represent consumers' interests better than, for example, the Consumers' Association, who of all people has a brief for consumer choice but who put the safety of the customer first.
766
It is a seductive argument to say, as one eminent retailer says, in support of the Government's view, "We want to extend consumer choice by giving our customers the chance to buy irradiated food if they want it." Consider the following scenario. The choice is given. Some customers avail themselves of it. Ten years on a few of them get ill, and some maybe die. After another five years, research begins to link these illnesses with irradiated food. There is then a major reassessment of the safety question, as there has been in the past with lead, asbestos, DDT, X-rays, smoking, the contraceptive pill, and nuclear power. What will that retailer —and what will the Government, for that matter —say to those consumers, or their relatives, who exercised their choice in good faith? "I am sorry. We got it wrong"? Will they be surprised at the reply: "What, again?"?
We want to make that scenario less likely, and hence this amendment targeted at the areas of greatest worry. Someone described irradiation as a technology looking for a use. It is not a bad description. Let us be quite sure that it is a safe technology. As the President of the Royal Society said on 30th November:
"Like children with a new toy, we are inclined to play with our science before we properly understand it."
There are still a number of quite legitimate worries —as those of your Lordships who watched last night's television programme on the subject will know—centering largely on proper scientific practice over safety studies. For reasons of time I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into that at this stage.
If further research shows that we cannot be assured of safety, or that a workable diagnostic test is not obtainable —and this is a crucial point —then we must have the good sense to decide that irradiation is not for us. The world will not fall in. Even herbs and spices can find new treatment methods if they have to. There is a steam method under development which I understand is already quite promising.
I suspect that few people outside the food industry equate progress with constant technological innovation in food processing. We can live without it, and we might even be healthier. If further research shows food irradiation to be safe, then well and good.
Lord Middleton: As the noble Viscount reminded us, the irradiation of foodstuffs is a subject that has come under close scrutiny by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. Sub-Committee D, which I have the great privilege of chairing, has carried out an inquiry into two European Commission draft directives which are aimed at harmonising the conditions under which food might in future be irradiated in the Community. As we heard during the Second Reading debate it is in line with these proposals that the Government intend to legalise food irradiation in this country, and to bring in regulations under this clause for regulating the process. The Select Committee's report was published last week.
There is no question about the need for a process which can be used as another weapon to control food

767
poisoning by salmonella and other organisms, and that is what irradiation does. The question is: is it safe? The assumption underlying this amendment is that it is not, because sufficient scientific work has not been done in respect of the matters under the subsections (a) and (b) to which the noble Viscount referred. Therefore it is assumed that there is a potential health hazard, and that irradiation should not be permitted until the conditions described in the amendment have been satisfied.
Our report examined those particular matters, and we nevertheless concluded —and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, does not like the wording—that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that irradiation of foodstuffs on the limited basis proposed by the Commission is safe. However, the process must remain subject to constant scrutiny and to re-evaluation, like any other technique.
May I turn to the specific matters in the amendment and take testing first. My noble friend Lady Hooper, when she was winding up the Second Reading debate on the subject, referred to the worries about radioactivity. She said on 5th December at col. 812:
"The infinitesimal extra radioactivity induced by this process is too small even to be measured. Scientists have calculated that it is a hundred thousand-fold smaller than the amount found naturally in food."
What that means is that at present there is, as the noble Viscount pointed out, no reliable method of testing whether food has been irradiated. Our report therefore strongly supports continuing research into the development of detection techniques. No one wants to eat irradiated food if he or she objects to it. On the other hand somebody who wants irradiated food needs to show that he has got it.
We did not consider that in itself the lack of a test represents a health hazard. Instead what it means is that the regulatory framework—which, among other things, will demand the most scrupulous labelling —will need to be more diligently enforced than would otherwise be the case.
In regard to pesticide residues, it is true that there has been no authoritative research. However, the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods considered that the levels of pesticide residues in food were generally low and that the levels of any radiolytic products would be negligible. This view was echoed, perhaps surprisingly, by the consumers of the European Community Group who did not consider that pesticide residues raised any particular issue. However, we agreed that more work should be done in that connection.
With regard to vitamins, the evidence of the Medical Research Council was that irradiation was no more damaging to most vitamins in food than was any other common technique, and frequently less so. They concluded that the nutritional impact of doses of 10 kilograys —that is the upper recommended limit —would not be a matter of significant concern. However, we agreed with the Government's proposal that information on the effect on vitamins of irradiation should be passed to the steering group on food surveillance for it to monitor the nutritional implications.
768
Regarding food packaging, we noted that irradiation has long been used as a means of sterilising packaging materials, and extensive research has been carried out particularly in the United States which has not revealed any breakdown of plastic packaging materials at doses of up to 30 kilograys. However not all commonly used packaging materials are suitable. We concluded that research into the effects of irradiation on packaging materials should continue, and that it would be in the consumer's interests for a list of approved packaging materials to be drawn up, as is already the case in the United States.
We were aware that very little research has been done on the effect of irradiation on food additives, particularly in the context of prepared meals. We recommended that the toxicological implications be thoroughly investigated before approval is given for any product containing additives to be irradiated.
As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury pointed out in his Second Reading speech, there is already a demand, albeit at this stage a limited one, on the part of the public for the protection against food poisoning that properly regulated irradiation would provide. In my view it would be wrong to delay its availability to the public as an additional food safety weapon merely for lack of a detection method or because more work needs to be done on certain aspects. So far as I know, no one is suggesting that people should be made to eat irradiated food. The Commission and the Government are proposing that any member of the public should be able to buy it if he wants it. It is the exercise of that choice which this amendment seeks to postpone.
On the question of how far one has to go to establish the safety of a new process, members of my committee felt themselves very much in agreement with the Co-Operative Wholesale Society. Perhaps I may quote what it said in evidence:
"There is a limit to the assurances scientific research can give … It is our view that scientific research [on irradiation] has arrived at a point where, within appropriate limitations and safeguards, the process can be legalised".
If my noble friend the Minister can assure the Committee that such safeguards will be established and rigorously enforced, I see no reason for the regulations under Clause 16 to be postponed, as is proposed by this amendment. I hope that the Government will resist it.
The Earl of Halsbury: The debate on this amendment seems to be degenerating into a generalised full dress rehearsal debate on the recommendations of our own joint committee. Our discussion is therefore being very protracted. Perhaps I may draw attention to the final words of the committee:
"they recommend the report to the House for debate."
Perhaps we can arrange to have that debate between now and Report stage so that it will be possible at this stage for the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to withdraw his amendment while reserving his position. Otherwise we shall go on talking all night.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like to ally myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury and my noble friend Lord Middleton. I think that there is something illogical about subsection (b) of this amendment. I do not believe that anything is to be gained by calling people names. The last thing I would do is to call the noble Viscount either a crank or a troublemaker. Nor, I hope, would the noble Earl who sits on the Cross-Benches assume that I was necessarily hectoring or evangelical. Evangelical I think perhaps I am, but hectoring I hope I am not.
However, in the meantime there is an assumption, which I challenge, in the amendment itself; namely, that something ought to be stopped unless it can be shown to be safe. To my knowledge, gamma ray irradiation has been known to scientists for over 30 years. There is a great deal of experience of it. It will not wash woollens; it sometimes alters the taste of a product; it does not remove toxins which are chemical toxins that already exist in the food. But it kills bacteria. That is known.
The assumption that one has to have an absolute assurance that irradiation is safe in other respects, while it certainly generates a desire for further research and full discussion, is not a wise way of approaching something which is designed to make food more safe and which certainly has that effect within limits.
Perhaps for a moment I may revert to the words of an earlier amendment. We were discussing eggs and something being piping hot. As a matter of fact, anybody who thinks that without eggs he can make either mayonnaise or a hollandaise sauce has another think coming. I have never consciously used irradiated eggs for the purposes of making either but I should certainly like to use them if I could. I do not know whether they would affect the taste of my sauces but I should like to try them.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I intervene to correct one misapprehension. I do not think that we are looking for absolute assurances. I for one accept that in science such things are unavailable. It is just that we do not believe that the evidence for safety so far is quite good enough.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I should declare an interest as chairman of a food company. A retailer has no greater responsibility than the safety of the food that he sells. I have tried to approach this problem rationally, carefully and open-mindedly. I try to be well advised by extremely experienced scientists, and the advice that I have been given wholly accords with the report made by the Select Committee. Our chief scientist has studied it carefully and does not dissent from it. Therefore I also associate myself with the advice that I have been given which could be described as overwhelming. I support the freedom to offer this process to the public so long as appropriate and strict safeguards are installed.
I should also like to tell the Committee that no retailer would wish to use or sell irradiated foods
770
unless he believed that they were 100 per cent. safe. Retailers know perfectly well that the reputation of their business depends on it. They would not take such a step. We would not do it and nor would anybody else.
I also suggest that no retailers would want to sell irradiated foods unless their experience, knowledge and expertise suggested that it offered a real and genuine benefit to the consumer. What would be the point?
Thirdly, they would not do so unless they had evidence that there was a genuine demand from some customers. It may be a minority, but we believe in serving minorities as well as the majority. We also believe in not being swayed by the emotions such as one sees so often in the newspapers and on television, but calmly, carefully and rationally to listen to the experts throughout the world and study what they say. In my opinion, they support the line that the Government have taken.
Lord Hunter of Newington: I wish to make a very brief point. The World Health Organisation regards illness due to contaminated food as one of the most widespread health problems in the contemporary world. It positively encourages member governments to consider introducing irradiation because of the public health benefits that it brings. The World Health Organisation has issued 10 golden rules for safe food preparation. Rule 1, on choosing food processed for safety, includes the words:
"If you have the choice, select fresh or frozen poultry treated with ionising radiation".
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: At the end of this rather protracted debate, I hope the Minister will find that the amendment is not acceptable. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Middleton has said. I am sure that on balance it is absolutely right that there should be capability of using irradiation. We seem to be forgetting its good points and searching for the rather more obscure dangers that lie on occasion apparently far into the future. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Gallacher: Before the Minister replies to what has been an interesting debate, I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for giving us a preview of his committee's report.
On these Benches we have not at this stage sought to take up a firm position one way or the other. My own view is that we can live with irradiation. Nevertheless, one would be less than honest if one did not take account of the genuine public concern that exists in some quarters. As a consequence, at the Committee stage of the Bill we have sought by a series of what we hope will prove to be reasonable amendments to allay public fears. No doubt when we reach them we shall hear the Government's attitude to them.
It is only fair to say at Committee stage of the Bill that we reserve the right to come back to this subject on Report because of its overwhelming importance and the high degree of interest that it elicits.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may start by saying that I have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham have said. This afternoon I shall have to make major remarks on all the amendments dealing with irradiation in order to answer the points that have been made by the movers. That is not of my wish. I am well aware that a date has been set by the usual channels for a debate on the sub-committee's report; but there we are.
I am quite satisfied that there is no need to delay the introduction of the enabling provision for food irradiation for any of the reasons set down by the noble Lords. I shall specifically address the questions of testing and research at this stage. I shall reserve some wider arguments on food irradiation for later amendments on this subject.
The need for a detection test was carefully examined by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. It was satisfied that such a test did not form an essential part of a control regime. The view of the committee and of the Government was that a system of controls through the issue of licences, with inspection by specialised staff and a detailed record-keeping requirement, would provide a satisfactory control system. In taking this view, we are of course in good company. It is the view of, among other bodies, the World Health Organisation, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the EC Scientific Committee for food, the United States FDA and indeed of the governments of some 20 or more countries around the world, including a number of EC countries, where food irradiation is already in use. I say 20 countries have implemented food irradiation. In point of fact some 35 countries in all have passed the necessary legislation, and 15 countries over and above the 20 stand ready to use the process when they so wish.
I listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Middleton. I would also refer the Committee to the conclusion reached in paragraph 128 of the Select Committee's report concerned with irradiation of foodstuffs. It states:
"The Committee therefore consider that providing the enforcement authorities are possessed of adequate powers to maintain the standards described in this Part of the Report, and providing they are adequately resourced, irradiation can be safely permitted before a test is available".
Various remarks were made which I should like to answer. With regard to the attitude of the British Medical Association, everyone —including the BMA, the Consumers' Association and all kinds of other organisations—thinks that they are experts on food irradiation. I can assure Members of the Committee that I have the utmost confidence in the views of the Government's expert advisory committees. They contained eminent medical authorities as well as leading experts in a range of relevant disciplines.
With regard to scientific doubts, it is always possible to find the odd scientist who still has some doubt and of course we pay attention to such views. However, the fact is that not one independent committee which has reviewed the subject has doubted the safety of irradiated food up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys.
772
With regard to the vitamin loss which was talked about, any process, even cooking, causes vitamin losses. However, the Government's advisory committee has advised that irradiation introduces no special nutritional problems. If that were not the case the process would hardly have the support of such organisations as the World Health Organisation and the British Nutrition Foundation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about an Indian study. The Indian studies which took place about a dozen years ago have been reviewed by independent committees of scientists in the international field —WHO and FAO, in the UK, the US, Canada, Denmark and in India. Every single one of these committees has rejected the findings of the original study.
With regard to Dutch prawns —no doubt the noble Viscount will come back to that —an impressive-looking document has certainly been sent to my right honourable friend the Minister on these alleged prawn imports. However, it was simply a list of cases from years ago and only one concerned the UK. In more recent times there have to my knowledge been only a series of allegations, hearsay and rumours. But of course the Government are funding research in the active pursuit of a suitable test as that would clearly be useful. However, the Government take the view that there is no case for delaying introduction until such a test has been devised.
As for further research into the process of irradiating food generally, this process has already been researched more thoroughly and for more years —and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is quite right —than any other food process. I can assure the Committee that the suggestions concerning the alleged need for more research, which the media keep repeating ad infinitum, were considered by experts of the WHO at an international conference on food irradiation some 12 months ago. I wish some of those consumers who read this mindless repetition and who conclude that there must be something in it could have been at that conference. Opponents of the process put forward all the issues that they considered still required an answer. The experts of the World Health Organisation took this list and set out, point by point, a full and detailed answer in each case. The opponents were left with no effective reply, but of course they now repeat their charges in the press just as though that had never happened.
In the light of this overwhelming weight of expert and highly-specialised scientific opinion confirming the safety of the process from all points of view, it would clearly be unreasonable now to provide that further investigations should be carried out before the scientific conclusions are accepted and put into effect.
I am not of course saying that we have closed minds on the subject; that we have closed the door on any further research. We fund an extensive research programme which we intend to maintain. But the desirability of continuing research is a quite different matter than saying that irradiation should not be permitted until every conceivable avenue has been

773
explored. Incidentally, I am told that many years ago there existed the same kind of atmosphere about the pasteurisation of milk.
There are two further points. As Members are probably aware, the derogation permitting the decontamination of herbs and spices by ethylene oxide expires at the end of this year because of doubts over the safety of the process. Manufacturers and consumers need a safe and effective alternative treatment.
The steam process to which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, referred is still at an early stage and as yet untried commercially. Also, I am told that it is unlikely to be able to cope with the tonnage of herbs and spices involved. Why limit ourselves to one form of treatment? Why not have several forms of treatment? At the moment irradiation is the only alternative to the treatment that has been carried out in the past and it meets the needs of manufacturers and consumers. I believe that there is a strong practical argument against unnecessarily delaying its introduction.
Perhaps I could also say that since 1969 —under the Food (Control of Irradiation) (Amendment) Regulation 1969 —the irradiation of food for patients for whom sterile diets are clinically indicated has been permitted. That said, I should add that to the best of our knowledge irradiated food has seldom been used in hospitals because of the advance in drug therapy which produces an alternative approach. Members of the Committee may recall that my noble friend Lord Middleton alluded to this in his excellent speech at Second Reading.
As I have already said, the Government will continue to finance research particularly for a reliable test. We shall allow food irradiation only after adequate control measures have been put in place. Once the Food Safety Bill has been enacted, specific regulations will need to be introduced, following consultations with interested parties, before irradiated food can be marketed in the United Kingdom.
Clearly, in drawing up our regulations we should not want to go against anything which the Community decided to require. Indeed, we do not want to make the passage of the EC directive more difficult. It is my hope that where these amendments are concerned Members of the Committee will as usual pursue the path of scientific facts and not allow scaremongering rumours to prevail.
I gladly give the assurance for which my noble friend Lord Middleton asked regarding the controls for irradiation. It is of great importance to reassure the public that the regulatory controls that we intend to introduce will amount to the close and detailed control which the public generally expects to be imposed in this sector.
I should like to stress the main elements in the controls that we wish to propose. First, no one will be able to undertake irradiation without a full and detailed prior inspection by highly trained experts capable of assessing their ability to carry out the process correctly. Secondly, they will be subject to
774
detailed conditions on all aspects of their business set out in a formal licence. Thirdly, they will be restricted to treating the food stipulated in the licence and to the doses specified therein for the particular irradiation objectives for which they have received official approval. Fourthly, they will be required to keep detailed records of all aspects of their business. Fifthly, they will be subject to official inspection at any time. Finally, there will be full labelling of all foods to which the process is applied.
I should like to stress—and I probably will again—that by including the means of introducing irradiation under strict controls in this Bill we shall be seriously helping to reduce food poisoning in this country. But manufacturers must want to take the process up. Retailers must want to sell it. And consumers must want to buy it. This Government would never say, "You must eat irradiated food". All we are asking for in a limited field is the right to produce a very valuable choice for the consumers of this country.
I am sorry that I have spoken at some length, but I hope my explanation will convince the movers of the amendment to withdraw it.
The Viscount of Falkland: I listened with interest to the noble Baroness. Obviously, I take exception to some of the words she used such as "scaremongering". I do not believe that scaremongering is a factor; there is a genuine concern.
I know better than to bandy words with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, over perceived illogicalities in my amendment. Moving to a lower level, I wish to advise him that he will not find an irradiated egg that he can use in his culinary adventures. The effect of irradiation on eggs is to make the inside a slurry.
Certain foods have recently been in the public eye as being culprits in terms of food poisoning. In addition to eggs, there has been cheese and pate. Similarly, they are quite unsuitable for irradiation, and in my view Members are unlikely to see them on the shelves of the outlets belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, the chairman of the Select Committee. It is good that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the report. It is excellent; I have read it and understood it as much as I can. I believe that the debate will be most informative. I agree that any further detailed discussion should be postponed until that date.
The level of penetration of the rays proposed to be used in this country are 10 times those which are permitted in the United States of America. That is curious when the United States has recoiled from previous positions of certainty about the process to the stage where five states have or are about to discontinue their use of irradiated foods. In Australia there is a three-year ban which reflects the level of concern felt there.

775
As I promised the noble Baroness, I have now the document which gives several examples, and I am told that there are more. The document emanates from the London Food Commission, only one of the organisations which has sent me information. The noble Baroness said that they are cases which occured long ago. I shall not bore Members of the Committee by reading them all; I shall confine myself to only two. One concerns the United Kingdom and the other does not.
In 1986 a consignment of Malaysian prawns, which was originally imported into the United Kingdom by the owners of a proprietary brand which I shall not mention, was found to be contaminated. The prawns were shipped to the Gammaster irradiation plant in the Netherlands. They were irradiated, illegally reimported into Britain and sold under another label. That was in 1986 which is not so long ago. I shall give my document to the noble Baroness in its entirety.
My second example concerns a company which was fined in 1988. Again, that is not such a long time ago. The Dutch parent company of the Danish Romoe Museli Company was fined in 1988 for importing 32 tonnes of irradiated mussels. Danish authorities rejected them because of contamination with bacteria. The company sent them to Gammaster for irradiation and illegally re-imported them into Denmark. Gammaster was not prosecuted. The product was being irradiated for export. Gammaster claims that food is tested for bacterial contamination before being irradiated. The list is quite extensive.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Viscount decides what to do about his amendment, he has made a very unfair statement about the dose being 10 times as high as in the United States because that is completely misleading. The United Kingdom intends to approve the irradiation of any food up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys. The US approach is somewhat different in that it has fixed different maximums for different classes of food. In some cases that is only one kilogray because technologically there is no need for a higher dose. However, in the case of herbs and spices it approves a maximum of 30 kilograys, which is three times the proposed UK limit.
The Australian decision, to which the noble Viscount has referred several times, does not follow scientific assessment but was based on a report by the House of Representatives standing committee on the environment, recreation and arts. That assessment of the safety of food irradiation can hardly have the same force as the detailed evaluations of professional nutrition experts, radiologists and micro-biologists and so on who carried out the work for the WHO, the US and the UK. The Australian decision was political as are the contents of the noble Viscount's amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am sorry that the noble Baroness considers that I am unfair because unfairness is the last thing I wanted to bring into this debate. I see us all having exactly the same aims,
776
but it is merely that we have a differing view about a particular process. Therefore, the Minister's reaction, which I consider to be unfair, was a tit for tat, but I put that down to a misunderstanding.
I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness said, as will my advisers and others. She can probably gauge from the tone of my remarks that I do not intend to press this amendment at present for the very good reason that at this stage we are not informed as to the point at which we shall be after we have debated the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton.
However, we consider this matter to be very serious. We intend to pursue it at a later stage with fairness and I hope that when we do that, our amendment will be stronger, more effective and Members of the Committee will be better informed and able to judge its necessary value. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in a very interesting debate on this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) No regulation made under subsection (1)(c) above in respect of the irradiation of food shall apply to food other than that produced under conditions of good agricultural and manufacturing practice, as specified in regulations under subsection (1)(d), and in respect of such food the Minister shall, after consultation with food authorities, issue regulations under subsection (1)(b) above as to appropriate microbiological standards").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to two of the principal recommendations of the World Health Organisation's international consultative group on food irradiation, whose findings were published in June 1989. Its recommendations included the following two key points:
"Only foods produced under conditions of good agricultural and manufacturing practices (GMP) 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".
The World Health Organisation report said that food manufacturing practices, which are set out in a number of codes of hygienic practice drafted by expert bodies, can greatly assist food processors to ensure food quality and safety. Good practice can be maintained both by food processors and producers establishing adequate quality control procedures over their raw materials and processing systems, and by regular inspection by public authorities to ensure that the requirements of regulations are met. Good manufacturing practice is therefore a concept of regulation which will be revised regularly in accordance with developing technology.
We believe that the Government should consider issuing guidelines for microbiological treatments of food. However, those should not be used as limits for regulatory action. A failure by a processor to meet a guideline should be a signal that there is a

777
problem with the manufacturing process and the good manufacturing practice may have broken down in that particular case. As the report goes on to argue, the foods of concern in this area tend to be raw, which means that adherence to good manufacturing practice will not necessarily ensure absence of some pathogenic micro-organisms. The purpose of the microbiological guidelines would be to give some assurance of good manufacturing practice. Such guidelines would not themselves however demonstrate that food was necessarily safe for consumption without appropriate further processing.
If the Government now intend to permit the irradiation of food they should, as the World Health Organisation report concluded, at least use the maximum degree of regulation available within current understanding and technology. Our amendment draws attention to two specific types of regulation for which provision is made in the clause under subsections (1)(c) and (d). The powers are provided for in the clause and it is hoped that the Minister will give some indication of the Government's thinking as to the regulatory framework for irradiated food in the light of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. However, I should make it absolutely clear that we will not allow irradiation to be used as a substitute for good quality control nor as a means of upgrading unfit food. I shall explain how we intend to ensure this.
First, all food irradiation would be subject to the normal food hygiene regulations. Secondly, while it would be impractical to attempt to lay down comprehensive microbiological standards, we will require appropriate microbiological testing to ensure that only normal, sound, marketable food is irradiated.
I draw the attention of the Committee to what the Select Committee had to say on this point. Paragraph 120 of their report records their conclusions as follows:
"Until such generally applicable microbiological standards are developed the committee believe that it would be misguided to attempt to apply specific conditions to foods intended for irradiation. Instead, adherence to the general quality standards currently applied in other forms of food processing should ensure that irradiated food is sound and of good quality. These standards can and should be enforced through random microbiological tests carried out by environmental health officers".
As I have indicated, we entirely agree. Food for irradition will have to comply with normal hygienic rules. In addition, we will require appropriate microbiological testing to ensure that it is of sound quality. And environmental health officers will carry out their own random checks to ensure compliance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the comfort she has given me thus far in regard to the subject matter of the amendment. I am also grateful for her reference to the Select Committee report, a document I do not feel in the least inhibited in discussing during this Committee stage. To do so
778
would be Hamlet without the Prince or the Pope without Roman Catholicism.
Nevertheless, I will study what she said, particularly the implications for microbiological testing by environmental health officers and their capacity to undertake such tests on a regular basis. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("(3A) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) authorising the irradition of food or class of food the Ministers shall consult such persons or bodies as appear to them to represent the interests of producers of food sources and consumers.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment in line with item 145 of this Chamber's sub-committee report. It is also very much in line with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said on Amendment No. 73.
My main concern about irradiation is that of producers and consumers wanting a high quality, fresh product. Perhaps I may quote mushrooms as an example. Mushrooms, if irradiated, will last no longer than those kept in a cool chain. While looking white on the top, they can be discoloured inside. Customers, we believe would be discouraged from purchasing not just irradiated mushrooms, but all mushrooms. This problem could occur in respect of many fresh vegetables.
Perhaps of much more importance is the fact that mushrooms —85 per cent. of which are sold loose —must be irradiated within two hours of picking. How will that be possible to police, particularly if the mushrooms are purchased from abroad? Policing, for instance, of the olive oil regime has proved impossible. I wonder what are the chances for irradiation of products such as mushrooms.
I was very interested in my noble friend's reply to my noble friend Lord Montgomery regarding the need to designate irradiated food in restaurants. I wonder how his can be done for mushrooms where, as I say, 85 per cent. are sold loose.
British farmers and growers are always being exhorted, absolutely correctly, to produce high quality and reliable produce that the customer wants and likes. This amendment will ensure that the Minister, before he allows irradiation, shall consult those interested. That would mean the producers, the retailers, the consumers and, last but not least, the hoteliers.
I should like to tighten the amendment further and insist that the Minister does not allow irradiation unless there is agreement. I am not sure that that is possible, but I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: There is considerable concern among members of the industry who deal with fresh products of this kind. For that reason I support the noble Lord. Mushrooms particularly seem to have come into our briefing papers more than any other fresh product. I believe that the

779
anxiety of the Mushroom Growers Association reflects an anxiety among other producers.
The point that concerns producers of a product which achieves the majority of its sales volume through being sold loose is that irradiated products should differ substantially right through the distribution system and should be described and treated throughout that system as processed. That is the only way of protecting the housewife who purchases fresh produce such as mushrooms at a street market thinking they are fresh when in fact they may be days old having been irradiated. I support the noble Lord in his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend and the noble Viscount have talked about fresh foods. I see their point. I would not object to the principle of the amendment on those grounds. As it is worded, however, the amendment would seem to cover all sorts of food including processed foods, the producers of which, apparently, are to be excluded from those my noble friend would wish to be consulted.
The amendment needs to be re-worded to show that it refers to fresh foods; then one would have no objection to it. As it stands, the amendment is not necessary for processed foods for all sorts of reasons; and we have already gone over that ground. In any case, processed foods will be suitably marked, as we have also been told, where it is relevant for this process to be given to them. It seems to me, therefore, that we need to exclude them from the amendment. Alternatively, if they are to be included, then the food processors should be among those consulted. It will be interesting to hear what my noble friend says.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: In supporting my noble friend Lord Stanley perhaps I may ask that the proposed consultation process be extended from hoteliers to include restaurants and all representative catering organisation.
Lord Carter: Since we on this side of the House have put down a number of amendments in which we encourage and exhort the Government to consult with all interested bodies, we have no hestitation in supporting this amendment and saying that anything which brings the consumer and producer closer together is wholly desirable.
Baroness Trumpington: I thank my noble friend for his explanation, but I believe his amendment is unnecessary. Regulations authorising food irradiation are likely to be made under Clauses 16 and 19. As the Bill stands there is already a requirement in Clause 26 for such regulations to be subject to statutory consultation. This consultation will embrace all organisations which appear representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the proposal. I hope that replies to my noble friend Lord Montgomery.
I am happy to give an undertaking that the Government will consult organisations representing consumers and producers on any proposals for such regulations. Any consultation document will also be available to individuals on request.
780
Turning to the point made in relation to the irradiation of mushrooms, let me reassure the Committee that there is no reason for particular concern. Mushrooms were among the vegetables assessed by the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment as part of its contribution to the work of the Government's advisory committee on irradiated and novel food. They were also among the products assessed by the panel on novel foods for nutritional aspects as part of the Government's wider study. I can thus assure the Committee, on the basis of the conclusions of these expert committees, that irradiated mushrooms have been specifically assessed and that they are as safe and wholesome as any other irradiated foods. Of course, if there are quality problems producers will not wish to use the process but in view of what I have said I can see no justification for maintaining a ban on their irradiation. I hope I have answered the questions put to me.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Until my noble friend made that last remark I had hoped not to upset her too much by saying that I was entirely happy. I think I am more or less happy. The point I was trying to make about mushrooms is that irradiation does not destroy them at all. The point concerned appearance. I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench realises that appearance in food is very important. However, I think I am happy. I shall read carefully what she said about mushrooms. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 75 I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 76.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("regard to the desirability of restricting so far as practicable,") and insert ("a duty to restrict, and so far as is practicable, eliminate").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 75 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 78. For 35 years Ministers have been required by law to have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value in food. At present the approximate number of substances intentionally added during manufacture in this country is as follows: colours, 50; flavours, over 3,500; flavour enhancers, 7; sweeteners, 13; texture modifiers, 70. The total of these cosmetic additives whose function is to make food more attractive is over 3,640. Preservatives, including antioxidants and sequestrants, which basically extend the shelf life of foods, amount to 63. Processing aids, which facilitate the manufacturing process, total 91. The grand total is some 3,800 substances. Less than 1 per cent. by total and by weight are necessary preservatives; over 95 per cent. are cosmetic.
I am almost tempted to rest my case there. If additives have increased to such an enormous extent the argument for tightening up a law which has had so little effect speaks for itself. Frankly, it is inconceivable that there is a real need for so many substances in our diet. The wording of this amendment is designed to place a duty on Ministers not just to restrict additives but to work to reduce them.
Perhaps I may read to the Committee from a food label which states:
"Ingredients: raspberry flavour jelly crystals: sugar, gelling agents E410, E407, E340, potassium chloride; adipic acid, acidity regulator E336, flavourings, stabiliser E466, articifial sweetener (sodium saccharin), colour E123. Raspberry flavour custard powder: starch, salt, flavourings, colours E124, E122. Sponge, with preservatives E202, colours E102, E110. Decorations with colours E110, E132, E123, E127".
There are three more lines in this vein, but I expect the Committee has the flavour of it by now. It is (or was) a trifle, but I doubt whether the Committee would have guessed that.
People may ask: where is the harm in this, and does it really matter? I shall explain as concisely as I can why I think it does matter and why the framers of earlier legislation were right to want to restrict additives, and why the situation is even more urgent today. Additives harm people: not all additives by any means and not all people. But the evidence is clear to see. The harm is both negative —in the trifle I have described there can have been little room for any vitamin or mineral content —and positive by inducing adverse reactions.
I say that without equivocation and in the face of many official assurances to the contrary. A professor and a member of the Advisory Committee on Toxicity said:
"No one in Britain has ever suffered harm from an intentional additive".
He clinched the matter with the elegant argument that no additives were harmful, otherwise they would not be permitted in food. I refer to a recent television programme in which an official of the food industry said that artificial colours were perfectly safe and they had all been "fully tested".
Why can I not accept these assurances? It is partly because of the nature of the science that underpins them. I have spoken on this topic before. Science, which now includes medicine, is currently in thrall to the controlled trial. It is of course an absolutely vital tool, but it is not and never will be the only source of good evidence. However, the current fashion is to treat it as such. Clinical experience alone, on which medicine progressed for thousands of years, counts for little. The result is that a large and growing body of good evidence from doctors around the world, from the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, from practitioners of complementary medicine and others, can be dismissed as anecdotal with perfect professional respectability.
Few of these people have access to the kind of big money which is needed to mount controlled trials. So we hear the well-worn phrase, "There is no evidence to show that any harm has resulted". Few people recognise how little this bit of professional
782
jargon means. Coupled with that, we commonly see a high degree of proof of harm called for before any precautions are taken. The scientists' desire for absolute proof is admirable, but it is out of place in the real world of public policy where the possibility of harm to people should be enough to sound the warning bells.
It is the failure to recognise that which has been responsible for much of our present environmental troubles. The scientific approach is vitally necessary but it is seldom, if ever, sufficient. For all that, there have been some well-conducted trials in this field by respected people. Professor Soothill and others at Great Ormond Street Hospital were able to implicate tartrazine and benzoic acid, a colouring and a preservative, in childhood migraine and hyperactivity reported in the Lancet in October 1983 and March 1985. These results have not been refuted; they are usually just ignored.
Professor Truswell of the University of Sydney came to similar conclusions in July 1985, in a trial that tested other chemical additives as well and found culprits among them. Doctor Hunter, a leading gastro-enterologist at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, writes:
"Approximately one-fifth of our patients react 10 food additives such as preservatives and colourings".
The suggestion in the joint report by the British Nutrition Foundation and the Royal College of Physicians that a maximum of 15 people in 10,000 react to additives —I believe the figure was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on Monday —needs to be seen in the context of a very rough estimate on limited data made in the early 1980s when awareness of food intolerance was not as it is now.
A moment's thought will show the absurdity of the claims for perfect safety. How can 3,800 substances be rigorously tested within the limits of time, money and manpower? I take a foreign example. An authoritative textbook states that reliable toxicological information is available for less than one in 14 of the 17,200 chemicals eaten or absorbed in the USA. That does not begin to tackle the question of the interaction between chemicals, which is what the real life situation is all about. We do not eat and drink additives in isolation.
I am not aware of any research at all on the interacting cocktail of chemicals in our every-day diet. The scale of such a task is almost unimaginable. People sometimes argue that if there was here a real problem we would have noticed it long ago. The problem of smoking might have been recognised long ago—hundreds of years ago, in fact. A similar argument applies to lead in petrol, asbestos, and so on. It is not a good argument.
To find whether a colouring in beer is the cause of arthritis, headaches or heart trouble takes a great deal of careful and detailed work. These matters seldom spring to the eye. There are no easy assumptions of safety here. An indication that we are on the wrong track in this country is provided every time an additive is banned. The other day it was potassium bromate in white bread which was removed as a flour improver because it was shown to cause cancer in animals. Why was it there in the first place?
Two months ago the problem was with caramel colourings. Why does Britain allow more additives and have weaker controls than almost any other country in the developed world? At a meeting on additives a Dutch paediatrician asked:
"But why do you want to make your children ill? In Holland the parents came to us and told us what was happening, and we got together with the food manufacturers and identified the colourings, and they substituted, and in a few months the problem was no more … Why are they fighting this knowledge? I cannot understand it".
Neither can many people in this country.
So far I have not spoken specifically about Amendment No. 78. We have highlighted colouring agents because they are the most purely cosmetic additives as well as the most troublesome. The coal-tar dyes in particular need attention. Looking back over 60 years of expert advisory reports, no coal-tar dye has always been classified in the A category; that is, acceptable without question for use in food. If Norway can manage without artificial colours, and the United States allows seven, why do we permit 16? If Amaranth is banned in Sweden, Russia and America, why is it accepted as safe here? Where is the need for so many colours? It is welcome news that some tightening up is going on in the wake of the recent review of the Food Advisory Committee, but every such review must raise the question of why those substances were allowed in the first place.
Our hope in moving these amendments is that the Government will accept that Clause 16(4) as worded has been honoured mainly in the breach until now and that there is a strong case for tightening up. If they accept this, they will be moving in step with the views of the public, who want less, not more, chemicals in their air, water, soil and food. I beg to move.
Baroness Tumpington: Perhaps I may clarify in my mind that the grouping is Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Earl has made a fairly lengthy and extremely carefully thought out speech. He is saying things which concern a great many people. He asked why this country is so far behind other countries. Some of us have been wondering that, but surely that is what the Bill is about. It seeks to bring us up to date. In this clause the Government have attempted to strike a sensible balance. I say to the noble Earl that we should not take all the fun out of life. He is saying that if his amendment were accepted the Government would have a duty to make sure that all boiled sweets are white. I do not think that that would be very much fun for anybody.
The Viscount of Falkland: I support the noble Earl's amendment. Colour has little nutritional value in food except perhaps in one or two examples in regard to infant food. There might be a temptation to present the food in an attractive way using colour and so on to the detriment of its nutritional value,
784
although with a reputable manufacturer that would not be the case. The amendment would tighten up the law on the matter. I certainly support it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I propose to comment on Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 and also to speak to my Amendment No. 77. I believe that with Amendment No. 75 the noble Earl is overdoing it, on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. The subsection goes as far as is necessary and as far as it is reasonable to require a government to go. It says:
"Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value".
That goes quite a long way. To strengthen it in the way the noble Earl suggests because of his extreme views reduces the validity of the clause. I hope therefore that my noble friend will resist it.
Why pick on colours? There are a good many additives, and I shall have something more to say on that subject when I speak to my own amendment. In my experience in the past 10 years colours have been very much the subject of restriction, especially in the European Community as well as in this country. There was a stage when the food processing industry was invited to test six colours. It took about nine years to complete and several generations of rats were gone through. It cost £1·5 million to test six colours. The industry thought it worth doing that. On the whole, colours came through all right. This goes on all the time. To strengthen the clause in the way the noble Earl suggests strikes me as unnecessary at this stage.
Colours are to be the subject of even stricter regulation in accordance with the advice of the Food Advisory Committee, which has, however, recognised the need for the use of some colours in food. Some colours are certainly necessary because it has been found that people will not in the main buy grey products. Where it can be established that the colours are harmless —a great deal of trouble is taken to do that —it is much better to let people have what on the whole they want.
The current wording of the clause is taken from the Food Act 1984. It is intended to deal with the control of food additives through the development of positive lists in subsidiary legislation. Few additives are considered to have intrinsic nutritional value, although they may, through preventing deterioration, maintain a food's nutritional value, or, in making foods more attractive, assist in promoting the consumption of a variety of foods and hence of a balanced diet.
This provision does not, however, take into account recent developments such as alternatives to fat or carbohydrate which do not contribute energy to the food. These substances may be considered to be without inherent nutritional value and so be deemed to be caught by this provision. But they can, and indeed are intended to, make a beneficial contribution to the diet of those who wish to reduce their energy intake. That is the point of what may appear to be a very subtle alteration in changing "of no nutritional value" to "without beneficial nutritional effect".

785
Set against the background of recent COMA reports advising on intakes of fat and carbohydrate, there is likely to be increased interest in these substances. My amendment would retain the spirit of the current Bill's provision but usefully clarify its meaning to reflect changes in food technology and consumer requirements. It would of course be necessary for any such new substances to be evaluated and cleared for use, as may be appropriate, according to their intended applications, but that is the normal process.
I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that all the other three amendments are a disaster and that mine is worth supporting.
Lord Ezra: As my amendment is one of those contained in the group, I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said in proposing his amendment. He was right to draw attention to the fact that there is growing public concern about the extensive and widening use of food additives. He was also right to draw attention to the fact that the use of this kind of wording in previous legislation did not seem to have much effect.
The wording of Clause 16(4) is highly qualified. The words "have regard to" are themselves a qualification. The words "desirability", or another form of it, was criticised by the noble Baroness earlier in relation to Amendment No. 68. She thought that the word "desirable" was subjective and could have almost any meaning that one wished to put on it. Moreover, the words "so far as practicable" are also a qualification. Therefore, I can hardly think of a more qualified phrase than that which is contained in Clause 16(4). Further, in the light of this very extensive public concern I should have thought that there was a strong case for strengthening the wording to some degree.
Lord Auckland: If these amendments, especially those put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, were accepted, I venture to suggest to the Committee that enforcement would be extremely difficult. Some noble Lords may have watched the most interesting television series which is shown on Tuesday evenings called, "Food and Drink". One recent programme dealt with additives in confectionery. Like many noble Lords, I am quite partial to certain kinds of confectionery since I am a non-smoker.
I do not know whether there is any evidence to show that any particular harm is done by the addition of such substances as cochineal and citric acid to confectionery. It may well be that members of the dental profession will have adverse comments to make on the matter, and perhaps in many ways they may be right. However, I very much doubt whether additives are necessarily responsible for any such harm.
I am much more inclined towards the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone because it seems to be much clearer. While of course good health is essential as regards any type of food —that is, with or without additives —I believe that these amendments, on the whole, go much too far.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I think that colour is quite important in food. Those of us who are well fed and like our food do not always appreciate the fact that there are people who have to be tempted to eat; for example, the elderly, the frail and the anorexic. Indeed, many people will not eat unless food looks appealing. Such people are really not eating enough. Therefore, I think that colour plays an important part in the process.
Each person's perception of colour in food is a personal matter. Someone recently gave me a cake. It was a home-made birthday cake. However, it had been made in screaming purple, red, and livid green. My first reaction was, "How incredible; I have never seen such a cake before". But the person explained to me that in her community that was the colouring always used for food and that they liked having their food in those colours. I should say that it was a delicous cake.
Surely the way to deal with the colouring factor is to carry out tests on the colouring materials in the first instance. That would determine whether they were all right. If they pass the test. we should be allowed to use them. However, if they do not pass the test they should be banned. That is exactly what has happened in respect of barbiturates. We are no longer allowed to prescribe them. The good effects of such drugs were outweighed by the bad effects and they are no longer on the list. Moreover, if that purple dye was not perfectly harmless —I hope that it was harmless —it should not have been available for people to buy and put into a cake. I think that this testing can be carried out quite easily.
The clause as it stands is really quite good. I also think that the subsection dealing with nutritional value is a good one. I say that because it says:
"shall have regard to the desirability of restricting".
That indicates to me that the Government can say, "Well, it is not desirable to restrict it". What worries me is that bulky fibrous material included in some food, which goes through totally undigested but which is of value in terms of providing bulk in the diet, might be described as having no nutritional value in the sense that you are not absorbing the calories. However, it may be a very desirable substance to leave in.
Under this clause it seems to me that the Government have the right to examine any type of food and any additives therein, whether good or bad, and to decide yes for them or no against them. However, the amendment seems to be pushing the balance in the other direction and getting it to a point where we might be bringing m an enormous amount of restriction which would not necessarily be in the interests of the consumer. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: I wish to answer a rhetorical question put by my noble friend as to why people colour food and drink at all. I shall give an illustration about something which I know and understand. Freshly distilled 'whisky is as water-white as vodka or gin, which are only pre-distilled whiskies. Why then, if the public do not buy whisky unless it is coloured, are they content with vodka or gin? The answer is very simple. Under

787
the trade descriptions regulations you cannot describe something as whisky unless it has been stored for a minimum of three years in an oaken cask. It picks up colour from the oak.
The favourite casks are second-hand sherry casks, but there are not enough of them to supply the entire trade. Therefore, we have whiskies of different colours. Moreover, since you cannot bleach the more highly coloured whiskies, you colour up the next highly coloured whiskies with a little caramel. That is done because the man accustomed to buying Johnnie Walker expects it to be of a standard colour and not necessarily the same as Famous Grouse. People have an eye for such matters. That is one answer to the rhetorical question: why colour things up at all?
Baroness Trumpington: In my view the debate on these amendments has been worth while just to hear the explanation of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. However, I do not believe that any of these amendments are necessary. Clause 16(4) repeats the wording of the present Act, which has been in operation satisfactorily for many years. It contains adequate safeguards for consumers and allows Ministers the flexibility necessary in such a subjective area as the need for non-nutritional substances.
There are substances such as artificial sweeteners or fat substitutes which probably have no intrinsic nutritional value. However, there is beneficial use to consumers in constructing their diets in permitting the use of those substances. I therefore consider that we would be well advised to leave the test as it is.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, want specific mention of colouring agents to be made. Again, this is not necessary as the same considerations apply and there is no need to highlight colours. There are examples, as pointed out by my noble friend, such as sugar, confectionery or table jellies, where the very nature of the product for consumers is governed by the use of colouring agents.
I turn now to the testing of colours, to which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred. All the approved food additives have been assessed by independent experts and found to be safe for use before Ministers approved them. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, also asked about the large number of additives in the UK list. The statistics quoted by the noble Earl are misleading. The additives referred to are not of course all used at the same time. They are also used in infinitesimal amounts, especially in flavours —3,500 out of the 3,850. Moreover, there are some additives which are on our list because they have been approved at EC level, although they are not actually used in this country.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked why additives were allowed in the first place. I think that he answered the question himself. Public tastes and perceptions change. We keep our list of additives under review with that factor in mind. The current review of colours to which the noble Earl referred is part of that exercise. Although some people are intolerant to food additives, including colours, there
788
is an interesting thought in this respect. Scientific evidence is that many more are intolerant to chemicals naturally present in basic food such as milk and wheat.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I shall answer the Minister's last point first by pointing out that milk and wheat are part of our staple diet whereas one has much more of a choice about putting in additives. To add something to which people are known to react does not seem to me to be good sense.
We have had a useful debate. I am grateful to all who have taken part. The disagreement revolves around the extent to which the present wording has been doing its job. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that that was what my main point was about. The present wording, as others have said, has existed for about 35 years. It appeared in the previous Food Act. My feeling, which is why I tabled the amendment, was that, far from overdoing it, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, something like this wording is necessary to produce any control over the escalating number of additives.
Why did I pick out colours? As I said, they seem to me to be the least necessary and to give the most troublesome reactions. They are probably what we can most do without.
I should turn around the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. He rightly said that the trials are expensive. I thought that he was going to say that they came through with flying colours, but he did not. They are expensive and therefore it is unreasonable to expect to find the manpower and money to test them all. So one takes a precautionary stance and starts with as few as one can. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, believed that there would be a problem over enforcement with this wording. Yes, in a sense it is a bit woolly; but so is the present wording. There is no worse problem with the wording of the amendment than with the wording that we have had for many years.
Needless to say, I am disappointed by the noble Baroness's reply. She said that the clause had been in action satisfactorily for several years. I would argue that it is far from satisfactory if we now have nearly 4,000 of those substances. I shall not argue about the exact numbers. I understand that she and her colleagues would feel a lot less comfortable if they were under a duty rather than having to have regard to the substances; but it is what I feel is necessary. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to press the matter at the moment. We have had an interesting debate. I should like to take the amendment away and think about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 79 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Enforcement of Community provisions]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 16, at end insert ("Where Ministers are aware of pending Community obligations they shall await a decision by the Council of Ministers on those obligations before making regulations of the kind described in this subsection").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to give the Government the opportunity of becoming even more communitaire than they claim they are at present. The text reads:
"Where Ministers are aware of pending Community obligations they shall await a decision by the Council of Ministers on those obligations before making regulations of the kind described in this subsection").
Clause 17 is the Community clause: the sidelining identifies it as such. We have no quarrel with the general objective on the clause. It is obviously sensible and right that the procedure in Britain for implementing Community requirements as regards food should be as expeditious as it will be when Clause 17 is enacted. The Bill is long on Community obligations. It is equally right that Her Majesty's Government should accept the nearness of 1992 and attempt to anticipate European Community proposals, even at the expense of own-initiative. Failure to do so, and the exercise prematurely of own-initiative when a Community directive or other legislation is in prospect, will be detrimental to business planning and other interests. In certain circumstances, it will lead to a request for derogations, which are designed to impede 1992, at least in spirit if not in practice.
The framework directives for food post-1992 are now mostly in place. However, there are some specific issues, one of which is the draft directive on irradiated food issued by the Community. Asking the Ministry of Agriculture to keep in step with Community requirements for irradiated food should commend itself to Her Majesty's Government. First, it accords with the concept of a single market; secondly it will avoid doubts in the mind of food manufacturers about incurring the high capital cost of providing plant for irradiation, and the likely response of food retailers to that capital cost; and, thirdly, it will eliminate problems concerning inter-Community trade in irradiated food—for example, a situation in which some member states allow irradiated food, some do not and others partially allow it.
If Her Majesty's Government permitted irradiated food as and when it was a Community requirement to do so, much of the present opposition would diminish. Blaming Brussels is almost a national pastime: I am surprised that an astute Minister of Agriculture, such as I believe the present incumbent undoubtedly is, has not realised that. The drive of career prospects in politics never fails to amaze me. As I said, it would be better for manufacturers and retailers because of the elimination of uncertainty.
The speed of Community action as regards irradiated foods is well within the scope of Her Majesty's Government to influence, especially as irradiated food is permitted now in France, Belgium and Holland. In view of those circumstances, the Council of Ministers should be willing to act
790
promptly and should not be too worried abut the European Parliament's views on the original directive.
Our Select Committee on European Community affairs in its special report advocates action on irradiated food in step with European Community. By happy coincidence that accords with the spirit of the amendment. The amendment is designed to achieve that end as regards irradiated food but, more importantly, as a general proposition. It ensures, as I said at the outset, a communitaire approach to 1992 which I hope will appeal to Her Majesty's Government and allow them the pleasure of accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has said everything that I was planning to say about the amendment except for one thing. As a member, at any rate during the later stages, of the Select Committee —at a time when it was agreed that we should propose to the Government that they should not proceed with their plans to allow irradiation until the draft directive had been agreed to —I was under the impression, as I believe was the committee, that that decision was pending and would not take long. If it does not take long, I stand by our decision. I hear on the grapevine —perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm this —that the Select Committee was aiming at a moving target and that it is not proving as simple as the Community thought to take that decision. If so, and it means a long delay, I can see the Government's point in proceeding, because many urgent matters require to be regulated upon. We probably should not wait indefinitely for the decision from the Community. We have been in this position before, and it could happen again. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Trumpington: There are two main reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. I shall deal with the wider aspect first. If I were to accept the amendment the result would be that whenever we suspect that plans are afoot for a new Community law on any aspect of food, regardless of however many years hence, we should not proceed with regulations under the Bill. This would result in the British consumer waiting for possibly an unreasonably long time to be properly protected in a whole range of areas. This situation does not strike me as acceptable and for that reason alone I find it impossible to accept the amendment.
I come now to the question of food irradiation. The whole object of the Bill is to ensure food safety. That is the title of the Bill and that concern lies behind almost every clause we have been debating and will debate. Food irradiation has, I submit, a useful part to play in our comprehensive strategy. It is not a quick fix to clean up dirty food at the end of the food chain.
The report of the sub-committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Middleton has drawn attention to the weight of scientific evidence given by the distinguished independent expert scientific committee to which the Government referred the examination of the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food. That committee concluded, first,

791
that given proper controls and up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys, irradiated food is both safe and wholesome; secondly, that there is no public health justification to maintain the current ban; thirdly, that the potential benefits of food irradiation present strong grounds for permitting its use, assuming the safety of the food supply is a matter of great concern to any government.
In the light of the experts' recommendations, some of which I have outlined and which have been endorsed by the European Community's committee, and taking into account the firm position of WHO, I submit that it is the clear duty of the Government to provide for the introducton of food irradiation as an additional weapon in the armoury of measures to fight food contamination.
I understand the concern expressed in paragraph 141 of the House of Lords sub-committee, but if we were to follow its recommendation not to proceed with plans to allow food irradiation until the draft EC directive had been agreed it would strengthen the position of those who wish to restrict consumer choice by preventing the legislation on food irradiation. Other EC countries —France, Belgium, Holland and Italy —already give their consumers the choice of buying some irradiated food. We want to make the same choice available to our consumers, who deserve the same standards of safety.
Clearly, in drawing up our regulations, as I said earlier, we would not wish to go against anything which the Community decided to require in relation to food irradiation. One harmonised set of rules for the whole Community would certainly avoid any risk of confusion.
Nevertheless, I think it would be a great mistake to delay. Here I come to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The time-scale in Brussels is far from clear. Discussions are currently bogged down, largely for political reasons; certainly not for reasons of safety since that aspect has already been confirmed by the EC scientific committee for food. It is not clear how those political difficulties will be resolved or how quickly.
We see no reason whatever to hold up the introduction of a potential health benefit for UK consumers simply because political difficulties among some of our partners are delaying action by the Community. It is true that there is disagreement between member states as to the products to which the process should be applied. But perhaps I may stress that our proposals do not envisage allowing irradiation for any product or for any purpose or at any level of dose for which safety has not been confirmed. Moreover, every single one of the products likely to be irradiated here is already being irradiated by one or another of our EC partners.
I hope that the truth of what I have been saying has convinced the Committee that it is right to proceed. Standards will be rigorously maintained. All irradiated food will be clearly identified and labelled. Food irradiation premises will be licensed. At the end of the day, with all the assurances I have given, the consumer will be the one to make the choice. It is a case of choice, not must. This Chamber
792
has always been the champion concerning matters of choice. For all the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. She will not be surprised to hear that I am totally unconvinced by it. It has been suggested that the effect of this amendment would be to put Her Majesty's Government in a situation in which they suspect that if plans are afoot they must delay. With due deference, the amendment says nothing of the kind. It says:
"Where Ministers are aware of pending Community obligations".
Suspicion does not come into it. There is either something on the table or there is not. It is only in the circumstances in which there is something on the table that this amendment would begin to bite. Therefore, I suggest that that argument is misconceived. I could think of stronger words, but because of my high regard for the noble Baroness I shall not use them this evening.
The argument that because the Community is a complex organisation there is likely to be delay seems to me to be entirely passive on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I thought, in my innocence, that come 1992 we would be in a new era regarding the European Community, and that in anticipation of it things would happen quickly. I am sorry that a certain distinguished noble Lord is not in his place tonight to hear this. If that is not the case and if the noble Baroness is telling me that we are still playing politics about simple questions of this kind in Brussels, I think it is time that the British Government made that abundantly clear to both the Council of Ministers and the Commission.
There must surely be limits to the credibility of the people of this country about whether or not we shall really see a Community functioning as those who advocate that in 1992 it will function. On the other hand, it may still be the same old niggling affair in which dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s and blaming translators and interpreters and all the other jiggery-pokery make a mockery of what we are seeking to do. Incidentally, worse than making a mockery of it, that gives us extremely bad value for money. I agree with the critics of the Community this far: that unless we can justify the cost to the United Kingdom, which is very considerable, we are on a bad deal in Brussels. Thus I do not accept these arguments in the slightest degree. I must say that I am disappointed that they should be advanced as a counter to this amendment.
Because we wish to do this as a food safety measure, I am substantially in agreement with it. But that seems to me to indicate the urgency of the question. I still see a situation of great difficulty in persuading people to invest capital. I have not quoted the figure of the capital cost of a modern irradiation plant. Two figures have been quoted to me. One took my breath away; the other almost gave me heart failure.
I suggest to the Ministry of Agriculture that there is a bland assumption here that once the legislation

793
is in place and the Minister has acted by making regulations under it, things will begin to happen. There is an assumption that capital is just waiting for the investment opportunity which the legislation of irradiated food provides. I do not think that that is so. A part of the United Kingdom Government in this sphere is quite happy to let Brussels take for ever to act as long as we proceed unilaterally. Capital will want an assurance, first, that when Brussels does act, if it produces a regime for irradiated food which is not at one with what Britain wishes to see, we have a situation if not of actual stalemate certainly one in which people may have invested capital unwisely. For this reason I do not see manufacturers rushing ahead of Europe in this context.
What we are advocating in the amendment is for the good of British business. I have yet to see much being said by those who might be expected to irradiate food —namely, the large food manufacturers —in this regard. I am extremely disappointed with the arguments that have been deployed. I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her remarks. I dare say that the sub-committee thought that as it was considering a draft directive it would not take long before it was implemented. However, apropos irradiated food we shall not die if we do not eat it until Brussels says we can. There are those who equally firmly hold the view that we shall die if we eat it. I shall not test the opinion of the Committee this evening on the amendment because of the lateness of the hour. However, I shall certainly return to the matter on Report, perhaps with a better text. The Committee has a duty to pronounce for or against this principle.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I wish to refer to his remarks when he said he was disappointed with me. Frankly, I am disappointed with him. He simply has not addressed the point I made that various EC countries are already irradiating food. The noble Lord has not addressed the fact that 20 countries already irradiate food, and that four of those countries are within the EC. I believe I understood the noble Lord to say that it may take years to get the money together to manufacture irradiation plants. However, if we have to wait while the politics go on —we are one of 12 and although we do our best we cannot influence all the others—we shall put off even further the day when irradiation plants can be set up. EC proposals are often under discussion in Brussels for many years. An example of that is the heat treated milk directive which was under discussion for years before it was adopted. The jams directive was under discussion for about 14 years.
Lord Gallacher: The noble Baroness ignores 1992. Is that event going to occur or not? Is all that is being said about it to be believed or not? If member states are already irradiating food, what are the impediments to a decision by the Council of Ministers? It seems to me that the British attitude is that provided we proceed unilaterally the Council of Ministers can take as long as it wishes to introduce a directive on irradiated food. That is a passive and defeatist attitude to the question; it negates the spirit of 1992. I withdraw nothing and assure the noble
794
Baroness that she will be hearing from me again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Special provisions for particular foods etc.]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We believe it essential that there is an effective system for approving and controlling novel foods and processes. It is crucial in our view if novel foods, particularly genetically manipulated novel products, are to be accepted by consumers.
Baroness Trumpington: Am I right in thinking that this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86? That is all I wish to know.
Lord Gallacher: The noble Baroness is quite correct. I apologise to the Committee for not saying at the outset of my remarks that I was moving Amendment No. 81 and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86. I give that assurance now and hope that I can find my place in my script.
Genetic manipulation is an entirely new concept to most people who will want to be reassured that such developments are being carefully monitored and appropriately regulated. The Bill in our view fails to address this point. It simply permits novel foods to be prohibited once they are shown to be unsafe. Consumers deserve protection and must have it if novel food processes are to play a significant part in the food supply of the future.
These amendments to Clause 18 aim to give a sound statutory basis to the voluntary arrangements which at present exist for the control of novel foods and processes. Our amendments would give the Minister positive powers of approval rather than the negative sanctioning powers in the Bill. During the 1984 review of food legislation the Government formally accepted that some form of statutory notification and approval scheme for novel foods was necessary in the light of recommendations made by its food standards committee. I refer to the report on novel protein food issued in 1974.
In industry, too, there is a strongly held view that such a scheme is required to underpin consumer confidence. We are therefore somewhat disappointed that the Government appear to have backtracked on this issue, rejecting as they have any form of statutory approval scheme for novel foods and processes. These amendments to Clause 18 would make a legal requirement of the kind of approval scheme already envisaged by the Department of Health's advisory committee on novel foods and processes in its paper entitled Guidelines on the testing of novel foods. This proposal would provide guidance for those producing such foods, or those wishing to market them, through a flexible decision approach which would require

795
different information to be provided about different novel foods according to their complexity.
A system of identifying categories, as I have outlined, allows for a flexible mechanism of control which can easily identify those foods or processes which need to be checked and those which do not. In our opinion this arrangement would not impose an unreasonable burden on the food industry. It is for that reason, in addition to the other reasons that I have already advanced, that I beg to move Amendment No. 81.
Baroness Trumpington: Does any other Member of the Committee wish to speak on the other amendments before I reply?
Lord Gallacher: I hope that the noble Baroness will reply to Amendment No. 81. However, I was also discussing Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment and those being discussed with it. I completely share his concern that only novel foods that are safe should be marketed. This was very much in our minds in drafting the Bill. I believe that its existing provisions cover this point adequately and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Novel foods range from exotic fruits and vegetables to the products of genetic manipulation. Many will be perfectly harmless but it is possible that some may pose risks to consumers. That is why in this clause we are seeking to provide additional safeguards, over and above the other food safety requirements of the Bill. In Clause 18 we seek to provide for a flexible system which fully takes account of the potential risk of different types of novel foods. Perhaps it would be helpful if I amplified the background to our thinking on this subject.
Technological innovation and the consumer's wish for a varied, interesting diet mean that novel foods are likely to become increasingly significant to the food supply. That is why we established the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) in 1988 to advise Ministers on all aspects of novel foods. I am pleased to say that the committee operates most successfully a voluntary notification scheme for novel foods.
Against this background of increasing innovation, there is also a need to provide appropriate controls. The proposed powers would enable Ministers to introduce various controls appropriate for the wide diversity of foods that could be classified as "novel". So, in the case of products involving genetic manipulation we would have powers under the Bill to require prior approval following a detailed assessment of safety. But the same considerations scarcely apply when one is considering an exotic fruit, which has long been consumed elsewhere in the world.
Let me amplify this point. Our industry is at the forefront of development in biotechnology. We have no wish to discourage its spirit of innovation or put it at a disadvantage in relation to overseas
796
competition by unnecessary or bureaucratic controls. On the other hand we are determined that consumers should be adequately protected whenever a novel food might pose a risk to health. As I have indicated, this demands a flexible approach to legislation. Clause 18(1) provides for just such an approach. It will provide for a system under which we can control the classes of novel food which present a potential risk to consumers and, where necessary, we can attach conditions to any approvals that are granted. Of course our intention is to meet the concern of noble Lords that only safe novel foods reach the market. The clause as drafted, taken with the wider food safety provisions within the Bill. meets that objective.
7. p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wonder whether the amendment as proposed might be more effective in cases such as that of the Skoal Bandit. Some people classified that as a food and others classified it as a drug. It was a terrible tobacco product which one chewed. It was very carcinogenic and many oral cancers developed as a result of it. My point is that by the time that that was discovered the Skoal Bandit was being manufactured in this country. A large government grant had been obtained to set up a factory to produce it. When the product was banned it was argued that we were taking employment away from the region in which the factory was set up, and the region needed employment.
If "shall" appeared in the clause instead of "may" perhaps such projects would have to be approved in advance. That would prevent a similar situation arising. However, it may be that the matter is too complicated and Skoal Bandits could still have escaped the net. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the question of liaison between departments offering grants dealing with the food aspect. Would having greater control over food aspects mean that the department giving a grant would have to approach the Minister's department for a comment on the food aspect?
Baroness Trumpington: I may have to write to my noble friend on the matter. I believe that at the time the grant was given for the Skoal Bandit, with every good intention, it was not known that it was such a devilish thing. When a company comes along with what looks like a very good product which would provide employment for many local people in a new factory there may seem to be no reason not to give a grant. The decision was taken to ban the particular product; therefore I imagine that my remarks still stand.
I am a great one for taking out "or", but in this case I am afraid that I am told that I cannot take it out. There is a good reason, so I am told. The powers in Clause 18(1)(a) and Clause 18(1)(b) are quite different. One is concerned with novel foods and the other with importation. To substitute "and" might suggest that the two provisions should be used together, which is not the case.
I am reminded that the Skoal Bandit is not covered by the definition of food or novel food. However, I shall certainly look at the point when I am considering the relevant clause.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply to the group of amendments. Being very much a lay person in this area I shall need to study very carefully what she has said and to take advice from those who have asked me to assist them with this particular question.
Before I formally beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81 and not move the other amendments when they are called perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the statement that she has just made on this question represents the views of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Health, or both Ministries.
Baroness Trumpington: In reply to the noble Lord, both.
Lord Gallacher: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 13, line 30, after ("prohibiting") insert ("or regulating").
The noble Viscount said: In speaking to Amendment No. 82 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 84. The argument behind the two amendments, which insert the words "or regulating" after "prohibiting", is quite simple. During the next decade we are likely to see an increase in what are described as novel foods. Those can be established substances which have never been used or totally new foods, many of which are produced by biotechnology. Genetic engineering in particular is an extremely powerful technology which could bring benefits to manufacturers and consumers alike. However, such foods will not have a history of safe usage. Some could have adverse or unwanted effects.
We feel that prohibition is largely a corrective action after the harm has been done. In our opinion there is an additional role for the Minister to assess and regulate novel products which appear on the market as a result of that new technology. The words "or regulating" rather than the final "prohibiting" might be more appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The clause seeks to provide for arrangements to deal with the special cases of novel foods and imports.
The conditions in which we shall be taking action on novel foods will vary very widely. Some may involve the technique of genetic manipulation and thus require a detailed scientific assessment of their effects on consumers. It is our intention that in such cases there should be a prohibition on marketing until such an assessment has confirmed the safety of the product. Accordingly, Clause 18 provides for prohibition and for the possibility of subsequent exclusion from the prohibition so as to enable us to bring in a strict control system on the basis I have outlined. If we had simply wanted to regulate novel foods we should have just touched on the powers of Clause 16. The point is that we wanted to be able to operate a special regime.
798
At the same time some novel foods will be novel in the sense only that they have not normally been regarded as foods in Western Europe, though they have been used as food elsewhere in the world. Clearly products of that nature can safely be released to the public on the basis of the normal controls in the Bill, including Clause 16 if appropriate. An example is Kiwi fruit.
As regards imports, the wording in line 33 reflects the Importation of Milk Act 1983. That has enabled us to operate a strict milk import regime which we wish to maintain. I therefore favour retention of this wording, and its application to imports other than milk.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I fully understand and accept the argument that she put forward, which seems to be most appropriate. Under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 14, line 10, at end insert ("or has been produced by new or extensively modified processes;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is to the definition of novel foods contained in the Bill on page 14, line 10. The purpose is to broaden and clarify that definition by emphasising the importance of the process by which they are produced. That is clearly a crucial consideration if the consumer is to be presented, for example, with foods that are commonly consumed but are produced or processed by new or modified methods such as genetic manipulation.
We believe that it is vital that genetically manipulated products fall within the scope of these provisions. It is for that vital reason that I now move the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Processes, including novel processes, can be regulated under Clause 16(1)(c) and can be licensed under paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1. If the food produced is identical to a food already available to the public there is no special case for an additional prohibition under Clause 18.
I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: That reply has a facility which almost bewilders and baffles me. Therefore I must, in my own interests if not my own sanity, take it away, study it, take advice and, if necessary, come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1989
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Driving Licence (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1989 be approved. The United Kingdom is obliged, by the provisions of the First European Community Driving Licence Directive, to issue full driving licences in the format laid out in a model in Annex 1 of that directive.
The present pink driving licence was introduced on 1st January 1986 to meet that obligation and is issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea to all drivers in Great Britain (Northern Ireland licences are issued in Northern Ireland by their own licensing authority). The European Commission considers that this licence does not satisfy the requirements of the first directive sufficiently.
The solution which has been devised to overcome the problem, and for which these regulations are required, is to have a driving licence (coloured pink) which fully conforms to the model in the directive and an endorsement and provisional entitlement document (coloured green) to be known as the "counterpart" which is legally separate from, but included on the same piece of paper as, the driving licence. This solution has been accepted by the European Commission. The new provisions will affect licences effective in Great Britain on and after 1st June 1990 and those effective in Northern Ireland on and after 1st January 1991.
For ease of handling what would otherwise be a rather complex series of amendments, the regulations have been divided into four schedules. These are: Schedules 1 and 2, which contain amendments to the relevant provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; Schedule 3, which contains amendments to Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 (but which is not yet in force); and Schedule 4, which contains the amendments to relevant provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 and the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
Although the matter was not raised during discussion in the other place on 11th January, your Lordships ought to be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has queried the power to require a driver to produce both the licence and counterpart in the circumstances prescribed in Section 164(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This amendment to that section is brought about by paragraph 9(a) of Schedule 1 of the draft regulations we are discussing tonight.
Our view is that such a change is a matter arising out of, or relating to, the Community obligations to which effect is given by these regulations and is therefore intra vires. The licence and counterpart are to be printed on the same piece of paper, even though legally separate, and so it is logical for Section 164(1) to be amended to require the driver to produce both licence and counterpart. This does no more than preserve the present arrangements. I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I take it from the necessarily complicated explanation that the noble Viscount gave that this licence will now be valid in other countries in Europe and one will not require to get a translation when one goes abroad. It is extremely complicated. Perhaps it has to be, but it is describing something with which we are all basically familiar.
There was one point that I wondered about, and I gave the Minister prior notice because it is a technical point. My present driving licence gives me authority to drive motor vehicles in groups A, E and G. My licence also says that it acts as a provisional licence to drive motor vehicles of all other groups.
If one looks at the explanatory note (a) —and I know that there is always a danger in looking at explanatory notes, but it is simpler than trying to unravel the jargon in the rest of the order —it says:
"to delete the requirement that the licence contain a statement as to the clases of vehicles the holder is entitled to drive as if he were the holder of a provisional licence for these classes of vehicles".
I have looked at Section 98 of the 1988 Act; but since I have given the Minister some intimation of my question, I should be grateful if he could explain to me what it means in a way that I could understand. Does it mean that my licence to drive groups A, E and G only refers to holding a provisional licence for those vehicles and not complete licences? I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up this point for me.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I always know when I am about to speak because they turn down the lights in the Chamber.
Is it intended that people with existing licences should have them substituted by the new document? The licences that we now have —until we get them so full of endorsements that nothing further can be put on them, which I hasten to say does not apply in my case —are intended to be for life, or until at least you reach the age of 70, or whatever it is.
I wonder whether there has to be a big exercise to exchange all the existing licences for the new document. I trust that that is not the case, because it would seem to be rather an expensive exercise if it is. Otherwise, I thank the noble Viscount for explaining this order so clearly in the circumstance of it being extremely complicated. Perhaps the noble Viscount is now in a position to answer the question.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for carrying on for an extra minute. I can tell him that there will be no need to exchange all our driving licences at the same time. It will be phased in over a period.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for giving me notice of his question, which was not quite as complicated as my speech. I think I can give him the answer. First I can tell him that there is no need to translate this, because the categories will be common in all member states and most other European countries.
The holder of a full driving licence will continue to be able to drive other vehicles under provisional licence conditions, because the amendment to Section 98(2) in paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1 of these draft regulations provides that the holder of a licence may also drive other vehicles under provisional licence conditions. This is achieved by the inclusion on the counterpart of the licence space to show such entitlement. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. If it does not, I shall of course send him a copy of the document.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him, further to the reply he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whether it is the case that, if and when we reach the age of 70, we shall have to exchange our present green and white driving licences for the new pink ones to which he referred in his opening remarks?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am advised by sign language that that is the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.19 p.m. to 8.10 p.m.]

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 18.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) Regulations issued under subsection (2) above shall be identified for England, Scotland and Wales").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which focuses on the well-known fact that this Bill, unlike previous food legislation, covers Great Britain. The subject of the amendment should be identified in that context. It asks that regulations in relation to milk should take account of the fact that there is a need to create conformity between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain. I assume that this is in part due to the separate character of Scotland at the moment and the fact also that it operates its own three milk marketing boards.
It is considered unsatisfactory by people who engage in the milk trade north and south of the Border that there is a greater barrier to trade in milk between Scotland and England than there is between, say, England and France. The object of the exercise is to encourage the Minister, given the passage of this Bill, to eliminate that barrier so that the milk trade between Scotland and England may flow freely. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I agree that there is much to be said for common provisions throughout Great Britain. However, there may be cases in which different rules are needed to reflect different production or consumption patterns. The amendment would rule out such 'variation and impose uniformity. That is why I am unable to accept it.
We considered the whole question of green-top milk last year —which brings in Scotland —and concluded that sales should continue, subject to new labelling and testing requirements. That decision reflected a consumer demand that evidently does not exist in Scotland and conveniently illustrates the need for flexibility, which is why the Government are resisting the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I may have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment because I was not aware that green-top milk was a major consideration. I did not embarrass the noble Baroness earlier when we were discussing food safety by drawing her attention to the disparity between regulations relating to unpasteurised milk in Scotland and those in England and Wales, where the very safe pasteurisation process that she mentioned, which was somewhat opposed when first introduced, is now accepted as correct and normal. Of course the Minister in England —in response, I admit, to farm-gate pressure —made an exception to permit unpasteurised milk called green-top to be sold, provided that it is identified as such, whereas in Scotland a number of years ago they took the decision not to permit it and indeed it is not permitted.
I believe that at the heart of this amendment is not the simple question of green-top milk but rather the ability of those engaged in the milk trade to trade north and south of the Border, particularly with regard to milk surpluses and the like. The Committee will know that for historical reasons there are three separate milk marketing boards in Scotland, some of them with a very limited geographical area. In itself, that is not of concern to me. I am more concerned about the aspect whereby if milk is surplus in one country, say, under the present quota system, it cannot apparently flow unimpeded north to south or south to north.
On that basis I believe that there is a case for having a further look at this amendment. Perhaps the Minister will look at it again. 11 too will take further advice to make sure that I have correctly interpreted what is before me. If so, it may be necessary to come back to this matter. Does the Minister wish to say something?
Baroness Trumpington: Thank you very much. I wish to say that it is simply not the case that trade in milk between Scotland and England is restricted. England sells to Scotland for manufacturing and Scottish milk is sold in our supermarkets.
Lord Gallacher: If that is the case, I have no case to put before the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Registration and licensing of food premises]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 14, line 18, after ("(b)") insert ("for the purposes of food safety").
The noble Lord said: First of all, I declare an interest as chairman of a food retailing company. With regard to Clause 19, I wholly agree with the proposal concerning registration and think that it is a sensible move. I also entirely agree with the need for the power to license premises. My amendment seeks to ensure that the licensing should be used for its intended purpose, which is in the interest of food safety. It should not be so drafted as to perhaps be misused in future by other governments to require licensing for reasons other than food safety.
For example, I believe that it would be possible for a bureaucratically-minded government which would like control over the economy —I am thinking of some of the taxes that were swiftly introduced to the service industries at one time and which were antipathetic to commerce —to introduce a requirement that food stores of a certain size should not be allowed to open without a licence. That is not the intention of the Bill but it is the reason for my suggested amendment.
The Bill serves the national interest of food safety and its purpose is the promotion and control of food safety. I suggest that the licensing should be effected with that purpose in mind. As a layman —indeed, this is the first time that I have risen to propose an amendment in this Chamber —I may not have got the wording exactly right. However, I am perfectly confident that my intention is right and that the powers given by this clause should not be so wide that they can be misused in the future for purposes other than the safety of food for this nation.
I hope that the amendment will gain support from all parts of the Committee and that I shall be disabused of any fear I may have that in future years there might be any possibility that the powers given by this Bill could be misused. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak from the local authority point of view and support this amendment, at least in principle. As the clause is set out it could form almost a mini-planning control and it could involve for the local authority a great deal of work and trouble unrelated to food. For example, a change of use from a different type of
804
manufacturing to a food business might be resisted. I therefore think that it is important to have such an amendment.
On licensing in general, all councils are overworked. Where voluntary members have to sit on panels to determine licences for such matters as sex shows, late nights and music and dancing, it is very hard to get councillors to sit on such panels. The provision should not become so widened that it becomes a complete burden on local authorities. I support the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: On this side of the Chamber we have much pleasure in supporting the amendment. We strongly support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover. I am quite sure that no government of which I have experience —certainly no government formed by this party on this side of the Chamber —would dream of using the clause in the manner that he suggests. Nevertheless, for the purposes of food safety it seems to me a very wide insertion at this stage because these provisions are somewhat loosely drawn and could be misused in the manner in which he describes.
Baroness Trumpington: I am extremely glad to have heard the speech of my noble friend. I am glad that he has moved his very first amendment on this Bill. I hope that it will be the first of many.
I have listened with great interest to what he and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, have said. I should like to have a little think about it. I am not sure that it is written in the right way or perhaps in the right place. However, I should like to consider the point further to see whether we can go some way towards what everyone seems to be agreed on. I give no promises, but in view of what I have said I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment this evening.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I am familiar with what non-commitment means. Nevertheless I very much welcome what the Minister has said. I thank her for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert ("; or
(c) for the publication by such authorities of information relating to applications for such registration or licences.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 19 concerns regulation of premises and/or prohibition of the use of premises. On the assumption that the recent amendment will be brought back in some different form I believe that my Amendment No. 89 could still be useful. It is so naive that I see it only as a probing amendment.
In the case of planning consents there has to be prior publication so that the public and the neighbours know what is going on. It seems to us that the registrations mentioned in Clause 19 ought to be dealt with in a similar way so that those who live in the neighbourhood of premises which will be

805
the subject of a licence or a registration can be aware of what is going on over the garden wall. For instance, if some change of manufacturing process or change of product will be involved, people have a right to know whether it will be noxious or not necessarily within the terms of what would be covered by normal planning consent. It is in this mood that I move the amendment. I am asking the Government whether they would find it useful to have a subsection in Clause 19 to cover such a situation. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The principle of a list of granted registrations or licences being available to the public will obviously be sensible. There is no reason why they should not be so available. However, the information submitted by companies in support of such registration should surely remain the property of the company. I suspect that the amendment will breach that confidentiality. I therefore suggest to my noble friend that she should resist the amendment.
Lord Carter: Although the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, we feel that in principle it is a good idea. Perhaps the Government will consider it.
Baroness Hooper: The Bill already contains powers for us to require registers under regulations and to require such registers to be open to the public at all reasonable times. We shall be considering how to make use of this power in devising the regulations on registration of food premises on which all interested parties will be fully consulted. Our intention, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is to ensure that the public is properly informed about food safety.
However, the amendment would require additional information to be kept, and to be kept up-to-date by the local enforcement authorities. We believe that this would inevitably use some of the additional resources —the extra £30 million which has already been announced —which would be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92 onwards.
As I said when commenting on the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to Clause 12 of the Bill, I am most concerned that these important additional resources which we are making available to local authorities should be used for the purpose for which they are intended: that is for improving enforcement of food law. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we should not be using these resources on an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise except when it is clearly in the public interest and in the interests of enforcing the requirements on provision of safe food.
With regard to the local authority register of food premises, businesses will not submit applications as such. They will, however, be required to provide certain basic information that will be used for the purpose of compiling the registers. We are not proposing to require applications for licences to be made public because these applications are likely to contain detailed information such as the names and
806
addresses of individual employees which would be open perhaps to abuse in the wrong hands.
In addition, an application for a licence might not contain sufficient information for a decision to be made. It would be misleading and unfair to publish incomplete information.
I trust that this will help the noble Lord to decide what he further proposes to do. He has already explained that he intends it as a probing amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. There may be some confusion. People are frightfully worried about lists. There is no reference to lists in this provision. I had in mind that some notice would be posted on the premises to which reference was made and that notice would say, "We are minded to grant a licence to do such-and-such on these premises". That happens in planning consents and so on. Rather than the keeping of a great register, this was simply a method of letting people who live over the garden wall know what is going on in the premises if there is some significant change in the products that are being produced on those premises.
Perhaps the Minister and her aides would care to think a little more about it. I do not propose to press it tonight. However, the point is this. People would be better informed and would therefore be happier to live with what was happening if they knew about it before it was forced upon them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Defences in proceedings for offences under this Act.
"—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act or any regulations made under this Act, being an offence consisting of selling, or offering, exposing or advertising for sale, or having in possession for the purpose of sale, any article or substance, it is a defence for the defendant to prove —

(a) that he purchased it as being an article or substance which could lawfully be sold or otherwise dealt with as mentioned above, or, as the case may be, could lawfully be so sold or dealt with under the name or description or for the purpose under or for which he sold or dealt with it, and with a written warranty to that effect; and

(b) that he had no reason to believe at the time of the commission of the alleged offence that it was otherwise; and

(c) that it was then in the same state as when he purchased it.

(2) A warranty is only a defence in proceedings under this Act if the defendant —

(i) has, not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing, sent to the prosecutor a copy of the warranty with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and specifying the name and address of the person from whom he received it, and

(ii) has also sent a like notice of his intention to that person.

(3) Where the defendant is a servant of the person who purchased the article or substance under a warranty, he shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this section in the same way as his employer would have been entitled to do if he had been the defendant.
(4) The person by whom the warranty is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence, and the court may, if it thinks fit, adjourn the hearing to enable him to do so.
(5) For the purpose of this section, a name or description entered in an invoice shall be deemed to be a written warranty that the article or substance to which the entry refers can be sold or otherwise dealt with under that name or description by any person without contravening any of the provisions of this Act or regulations made under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes us into the realm of defences. I say at the outset that, while I believe the amendment has great merit, it is essentially an attempt to draw a balance between those who consume food and those who supply and sell it. In that regard the amendment has some importance.
In the Bill the Government have decided to dispense with the statutory warranty defence in Section 102 of the 1984 Act. That defence has served well in successive food Acts for something over 100 years. Its object is to ensure that the responsibility for any defects arising during the manufacture of food rests fairly and squarely with the person who has control of the process.
Normally that person is not the retailer who is responsible for the handling and storage of the food once it reaches the store. All the retailer can reasonably do is to ensure that he purchases food from a reliable supplier who he is confident employs the high standards which are expected today. Nobody can expect a retailer to stand over the manufacturer to ensure that he meets the standards in practice. He does the next best thing and obtains a warranty from the supplier. That guarantees that the food concerned meets all the legal requirements, including all those properly contained in the Bill.
If subsequently a customer complains —say, of a foreign body in his or her packet of whatever it may be —and the enforcement officer decides to take legal action against the retailer, that retailer would, as the law stands today, be able to use the warranty defence. In that case he will almost certainly win. If the enforcement authority concerned in the hypothetical case has been doing its job properly it will have taken the manufacturer rather than the retailer to court and it will have saved itself a good deal of time and expense.
A warranty defence, as it currently exists under the 1984 Act, would not succeed if the defect is attributable to a retailer. A retailer who sells a loaf of bread after its sell-by date, or who has altered the food in any way —for example, by slicing a piece of canned meat —will find that the liability falls fairly and squarely upon him. The Bill before us repeals Sections 102 to 104 of the 1984 Act. If that repeal is sustained the only defence available is one of due diligence. It is not clear who the enforcement authority should prosecute in practice.
Although the possession of a warranty will almost certainly be regarded as part of due diligence, I suggest that it is unreasonable because a retailer does not want to have to go to court to prove it. The defence of due diligence is a helpful tool in a borderline case where it is less clear as to who is liable. Therefore, the introduction of such a defence
808
into the Bill is welcome. However, if it is to be the only defence available, retailers are concerned that they may well be taken to court to fight cases in which they are not the real offenders, despite the helpful subsections in Clause 21 which set out the conditions. Even if they subsequently win the case a court appearance is a costly event not only in monetary terms but also as regards reputation.
I believe that it is in the consumer's interest for the law to be as clear as possible. The consumer is the person who, at the end of the day, will pay for the combined costs of any prosecution. I suggest that it would be sensible to retain the statutory warranty defence at least in respect of home-produced goods. The proposed due diligence defence might be more applicable in the case of imported and other goods where a warranty defence cannot be used.
If the only defence available is to be that of straight due diligence, without specification of what would be deemed to constitute due diligence as set out in subsections (2) to (5) in Clause 21, retailers would need to more than double their existing expenditure on the testing of food, and so forth. Each retailer would be duplicating the other and the costs would readily and quickly mount.
Amendment No. 90 reproduces Section 102 of the Food Act 1984 except that it admits subsections 2(b) and (c) of the section dealing essentially with imports and milk respectively.
In putting the amendment before the Committee it would be proper for me to ask the Minister two specific questions. Exactly why have the Government decided to repeal the warranty defence in the light of their general policies to reduce the burdens on business? Certainly the absence of the warranty defence will increase that burden. Can the Government demonstrate a substantial number of cases where the warranty defence has failed to the detriment or injury of the consumer? In that regard I ignore some of the comments made earlier in the Committee about the reimportation of sub-standard foods or about fire-damaged goods which have hit the headlines over the past 18 months.
I believe that retaining the warranty defence alongside the new proposals will give a far better balance between the interests of the consumer and those of the retailer. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not consider that the warranty defence proposed in the amendment is appropriate. The warranty defence which exists in the Food Act 1984 is capable of abuse and could allow operations buying in food to avoid responsibility for all the food they sell.
For example, it operates to discriminate against UK manufacturers in favour of importers in that a manufacturer is required to accept responsibility for the food he puts into circulation but an importer is not. By pleading the warranty defence the importer can escape conviction. At present the impact of this loophole is slightly mitigated by a requirement that a warranty given by a non-UK resident is only a defence if the defendant has taken steps to check its accuracy. The amendment would remove even this safeguard.

809
My noble friend asked about differentiating between imported and home-produced goods. Under the Treaty of Rome we could be in trouble for differentiating between goods from other member states and those produced at home.
The new system of defences outlined in Clause 21 of the Bill based on the concept of due diligence is designed to ensure that all those involved in the food chain take appropriate responsibility for the food they sell. We have recognised that the due diligence defence in Clause 21(1) could cause uncertainty for retailers as to their precise responsibilities; for example, the case of tinned meat. Subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 21 therefore set out special deemed due diligence defences which will apply to retailers. I believe that the new system provides a fair balance between the interests of consumers, manufacturers, importers, retailers, enforcement authorities and others. Discussions which Ministers and officials have had with representative organisations have tended to confirm that belief. I hope that in view of my explanation my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation which I understand in part. Not having to hand the relevant sections of the Treaty of Rome, it is rather difficult to reconcile what she says, so I must look at that.
Certainly there is uncertainty. However, does the Minister not agree that there can be no uncertainty that a foreign manufacturer, being outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts, cannot be engaged in any prosecution which may take place between the enforcement authority, manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer? We are concerned about the responsibility of the retailer in terms of due diligence. Under existing law, the retailer has the warranty —this is a quotation from Section 102(2)(b) of the 1984 Act —that,
"he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain, and did in fact believe in, the accuracy of the statement contained in it".
Therefore, it seems to me that there is already a responsibility of due diligence under the existing law dealing with the warranty defence which is not changed by the omission of the warranty defence. That seems something of an imbalance which particularly concerns me.
The retailer, who might very well be dealing through a wholesaler or an importer, should be the one to be taken to court. But his warranty, which he has relied upon before, because it is taken outside the law by virtue of this Bill, affords him no protection whatever. He must then rely solely on due diligence. Is it reasonable that a number of retailers buying from perhaps the same importer or wholesaler should have to take all the steps of testing, examination and so on, whereas hitherto, they have not had to do so?
Lastly, I repeat my question to my noble friend. Can the Government demonstrate over the past five or 10 years that a substantial number of cases causing damage or injury to a consumer have occurred as a
810
result of a retailer pleading and winning a case of a warranty defence? If they cannot, I suggest that that defence should remain intact.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that my noble friend fights his corner very well. I do not believe that the warranty defence has worked at all well in the past. I do not consider that the warranty defence proposed in this amendment, which repeats and indeed exacerbates the faults of that in the Food Act 1984, is appropriate. The retailer will still be able to quote a warranty in establishing a due diligence defence. However, under the new system we shall be able to pin responsibility on the person who first brings the food into the UK. I cannot give examples off the top of my head but I must tell my noble friend that I shall not change my mind on the matter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Knowing the noble Baroness as long as I have done, I certainly detect an "ironness" in her remarks. I should not expect her this evening to change her mind. I shall think about what she said, and I ask her to be kind enough to think about what I said. I may or may not wish to return to this matter on another occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 21 [Defence of due diligence]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("or (4)") and insert (", (4) or (4A)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment should be read with Amendment No. 94. It is intended to clarify the position of the pick-your-own enterprises. I should say that I have an interest in my son's enterprise in Oxfordshire. I believe, and I hope that my noble friend will agree, that if a person picks a mouldy strawberry, the owner of the pick-your-own would not be committing an offence. However, I hasten to add that if the owner was in breach of pre-harvest intervals as laid down under the Food and Environment Protection Act regulations, he would be committing an offence under that Act. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
This simple amendment makes it crystal clear that pick-your-own enterprises are exempt rather than burdening the courts with proving that the owner of the pick-your-own took all reasonable precautions. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
However, there is a further problem with pick-your-owns. It may be that my noble friend would prefer to write to me. This is a rather grey area and perhaps she does not have the answer now. What is the position if the farmer picks the fruit or, much more likely, the vegetables, and then displays them for sale for the public so that they can choose which produce they wish to buy? Sadly, the public are usually too lazy to pick vegetables. They will pick strawberries and raspberries, but, for some reason, they do not like picking beans. That is quite

811
common. Therefore, the vegetables have to be picked for them so that they can select what they wish to buy. What is the position there?
We often offer cream for sale because it is too far for the public to walk to the village shop. I ask my noble friend whether the pick-your-own becomes a farm shop and therefore becomes subject to all the regulations in the Bill. This too is a rather grey area. There is also concern about catch-your-own trout. How is that affected? I beg to move.
Lord Carter: This is an interesting amendment. It seems that there is an omission in the Bill regarding the implications for pick-your-own which the draftsman has not really thought through. The Minister will know that we are encouraged by the Ministry and by ADAS to diversify our farm enterprises, including the operation of pick-your-owns.
Clause 21(3)(a) states that,
"the commission of the offence was due to an act or default of another person who was not under his control".
Does the picker commit an offence if he picks unripe or damaged fruit? Is the act of picking it a default under the Act? How does that differ from a greengrocer who has lots of self service fruit and vegetables? If the greengrocer puts unripe fruit on display and the customer chooses it, is the retailer at fault? We can see that there is an area here which needs to be looked at carefully. I believe that the noble Lord has done the Committee a service by bringing this matter to our attention.
Baroness Trumpington: Once again I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. It would mean, for example, that the owner of a pick-your-own enterprise could automatically be deemed to have satisfied "due diligence" and therefore escape conviction even if the food his customers had picked was unfit, contaminated, or injurious to health. That would hardly be a satisfactory state of affairs.
I understand my noble friend's anxiety, but I believe that as the Bill stands it already affords an adequate degree of protection for the farmers and growers that he has in mind. Clause 8(2)(c) is carefully drafted. It makes clear that food is only regarded as contaminated if it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption in that state. After all, if the person who picked strawberries then sat on them and squashed them, as a result of which they rotted, that would hardly be the fault of the person from whose farm they were picked.
Neither that, nor the defences in Clause 21, would preclude the sensible and safe use of pesticides or fertilisers by farmers and growers engaged in pick-you-own enterprises. Pick-your-own lettuces covered in mud from the field would clearly not be regarded as contaminated because any reasonable person would wash a lettuce before eating it. Of course, if a pick-your-own enterprise is selling grossly contaminated produce, that enterprise would be committing an offence just as a shop would be. A farm shop is a shop, is a shop, is a shop. If a farmer
812
picks vegetables and displays them for sale, he is caught by the food law. I am sorry, but I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry about that. I was hoping that at some stage my noble friend would accept one of my amendments. I was being very nice to her compared with the other day. However, to be serious, I shall very carefully read what my noble friend said. Looking at all the examples given by her I, as a pick-your-own owner, would have been caught under the Food and Environment Protection Act. As I said, I shall read carefully what has been said because I am certainly not trying to escape from that obligation. If I contaminate my food by using pesticides or by late spraying before picking, of course I am liable; but I cannot quite see the other side. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 15, line 1, after ("out") insert ("or caused to be carried out").
The noble Baroness said: I speak also to Amendment No. 93. Clause 21 brings the food safety law into line with other consumer protection legislation in that as it stands at the moment it sets out how a person may satisfy the defence of due diligence, which will be a defence against prosecution under the Bill. My two amendments do nothing to alter that premise and they accept the central principle of the clause.
I seek to clarify the Bill's provisions so that they do not impose an undue burden on smaller firms. It is the smaller firms who do not have extensive warehouse testing facilities and who have to contract certain testing work to outside laboratories. Surely that should be reflected in the person being able to prove that he carried out, or caused to be carried out, such checks as would be the case with Amendment No. 92.
Amendment No. 93 deals with the case of a person or company who might otherwise be liable to prosecution who has reasonably relied on tests carried out the supplier. By inserting the words "or on behalf of" in line 3 of the clause I am seeking to ensure that small suppliers are able to have tests carried out by someone else. The person supplied can then put equal reliance on such tests as if they had been carried out by the supplier himself. If that was not the case, the smaller firms would find it hard to sell to larger firms.
I do not believe that my two amendments in any way weaken the Bill, the object of which is to ensure the safety of food. One way to do that is by the testing of foods and ingredients. Provided such tests are carried out at all the appropriate stages, does it matter who physicially carries out the tests?
My proposals are comparable to ensuring that our cars are roadworthy. We do not necessarily carry out the mechanical checks or do the necessary repairs. We arrange for our garages to do that for us and to check that our cars are roadworthy. In a sense, I am asking that the same principle of testing is extended to the safety of food.
I confidently expect the Minister to tell me that the Bill as it stands can be interpreted as implicitly covering the points I have raised. However, the contrary interpretation is also possible. Where there is such a doubt in the Bill, then the Bill should be made as clear as possible because the courts will have to decide all the cases that go to them on the basis of what the legislation actually states and not on what we intended it to mean. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I support the amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will give it a fair wind.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry to tell my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that I cannot find favour with the amendments. As the noble Baroness will know, courts interpret defences very widely and would accept checks carried out at the instigation of the defendant as being checks carried out by him. Similarly, checks carried out on behalf of his supplier would be regarded as being carried out by that supplier. I hope in view of that brief explanation the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am terribly disappointed with the Minister's reply. Having tabled only two very small amendments in the whole of this Bill, I was hoping to be the lucky one to hear the words "yes, we accept the amendment".
The Minister has taken precisely the view that I expected, that the situation is covered by the Bill as it stands. Clearly, we must wait for the courts to make a decision to show who is right. I hope that the Minister is right. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 99:
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("(a)").
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("(b)").
Page 15, line 24, after ("unless") insert ("(a)").
Page 15, line 24, after ("hearing") insert ("and
(b) where he has previously appeared before a court in connection with the alleged offence, within one month of his first such appearance,").
Page 15, line 27, at end insert —
("(6) In subsection (5) above any reference to appearing before a court shall be construed as including a reference to being brought before a court.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope the Committee will welcome these amendments. They are designed to close a possible loophole in respect of action taken against defendants further back in the food chain. We have also taken the opportunity to make clear that the reference to appearing before a court will cover the case where someone has to be brought before a court and who does not do so voluntarily.
The main object is to ensure that proceedings against the real offender can be started before the overall time limit for taking a prosecution has run out. The Committee will be aware that Clause 34 sets these overall time limits one year from the discovery of an offence or three years from its commission, whichever is earlier.
At present, Clause 21 provides that if someone wants to use in his defence the fact that a third party was at fault, he has to identify that person seven days or more before the case has its full hearing. We are concerned that a defendant, perhaps wishing to protect the third party, could drag out his preparations so that there is not enough time left for the prosecution to start proceedings against the real offender.
With these amendments the defendant who intends to point to the guilt of a third party will have to identify that person within one month of his first appearance before the magistrate's court. In the unlikely event of a defendant wishing the case to receive a full hearing on his first appearance, he will still have to identify the other person at least seven days beforehand. This should lead to a much better working of the system. I trust that the Committee will appreciate the merits of these amendments which should make for more effective enforcement of food law provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Defence of unavoidable consequences
.In proceedings under section 14(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: This amendment inserts a new clause which has exactly the same wording as Section 3(2) of the 1984 Act. That provides a defence where it can be proved that the presence of extraneous matter in food was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation.
Section 3(2) states:
"In proceedings under section 2 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".
That is what we are seeking to retain. Here I am not thinking of the piece of machinery in the can of beans to which we have referred earlier, but of something far more natural and not at all harmful. For example, I was thinking of the husk of a pea pod in a can of peas or something of that nature. It seems quite reasonable that the due process of law should not be enacted in cases of that kind and that there should be an automatic defence.
I am not going to press this amendment tonight. If my noble friend the Minister can tell me that my anxiety may be covered by the due diligence defence which we have discussed in connection with Clause 21, that would be helpful. If she has any other comment, I shall be delighted to hear it. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Before I answer my noble friend, I ask him whether there is a misprint in the amendment as printed. Should it refer to Section 14(1) and not 15(1)?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of that. I had that point written down but I failed to read it out. The Minister is quite correct.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to my noble friend for the explanation of his proposal. I understand his anxiety which is to ensure that people should not be convicted of selling food not of the required nature, substance or quality if it contains matter resulting unavoidably from the manufacturing process. I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that the Bill already meets his point. The amendment would reinstate the defence in Section 3(2) of the Food Act 1984.
We are very concerned with tins of peas this evening. Some of my noble friends may recall the case of the caterpillar found in the tin of peas in Smedley v. Breed. In that case, the defendant —despite his demonstrating that his manufacturing methods were of the highest quality —was convicted though relying on this proposed defence. That was because he could not convince the court that the presence of the caterpillar was an unavoidable consequence of the manufacturing process. The process was designed to exclude such objects.
That result did not seem fair, but it was the legally correct consequence of the defence. Under the defence in Clause 21 I am assured that the defendant would have been acquitted on the evidence. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thank my noble friend for her explanation. Does her answer apply to a tin of carrots? That is a purely rhetorical question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders for facilitating the exercise of functions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
Page 16, line 20, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 16, line 35, leave out ("or any class of such food").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 16, line 46, at end insert ("or
(c) where disclosure is necessary for the purpose of preventing an imminent risk of injury to health;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. As the Committee is aware, Clause 25 enables the Minister to obtain samples of a particular product from all of its producers. For instance, if the Minister decides that she wants a sample of pigs' trotters and goes to every pigs' trotters manufacturer in the
816
country—thought I hate to think of the state of the noble Baroness's office after that exercise has completed —the Minister is entitled to do so.
Under subsection (3) of this clause it is an offence to pass information relating to any individual business which is obtained by means of an order under subsection (1). Any person who discloses any such information is in contravention and he shall be guilty of an offence. There are two very proper exclusions from that provision. We are seeking to include a further exclusion in cases where there is a danger to health. The actual wording of the amendment is:
"where disclosure is necessary for the purpose of preventing an imminent risk of injury to health".
If in the course of this sampling procedure there is found in one particular sample something which is genuinely nasty and a danger to public health, then that should be disclosed to the general public, who could be at risk, even without the consent of the manufacturer or the person from whom the sample was obtained.
With Amendment No. 133, we come to the secrecy clause, Clause 32(7), to which I made some oblique reference the other evening. This severely penalises unauthorised disclosure of information about food by enforcing authorities, which are mainly local authorities. As the Bill stands, an inspector who publicly reveals information about unsafe food or unsafe food manufacturing processes could be guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is an unlimied fine or up to two years' imprisonment, which incidentally is the same penalty as the new Official Secrets Act prescribes for unauthorised disclosures which damage Britain's defences or national security. But this clause if anything is slightly more oppressive than the Official Secrets Act.
The offence under Clause 32(7) is too disclose information about any manufacturing process or trade secret unless that disclosure is in the performance of the inspector's duty. However, there is no duty to inform the public about these hazards. That is what we are worried about. The case for protecting trade secrets is obvious. We would not wish in any way to alter that under Amendment No. 133. But we are concerned about the protection of information relating to manufacturing processes even where no trade secret is involved and the information is without commercial value of any kind. It would be an offence to reveal that a manufacturing process was being used, for instance, without the required safety precautions. We believe that the use of the words "manufacturing process" is unnecessary and that they should be removed. Such secrecy has been dropped in other legislation. For example, the Clean Air Act 1956 originally used exactly the same words, but it was amended by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to delete that reference.
Amendment No. 134 would allow the disclosure of trade secret information but only where it was necessary for the purpose of preventing an eminent risk of injury to health. That is a necessary case. Emergency action might have to be taken where people ought to be told that there was imminent risk

817
of injury to health. In those cases it should override even the need to preserve trade secrecy. One would always hope that it would be possible to speak to manufacturers and get them to agree that emergency action should be taken, but in those cases where that permisson was refused, it ought still to be possible for the authorities to override them.
The three amendments are extremely important in reducing the amount of secrecy built into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: On these Benches we are pleased to support the amendments. Considerable concern has been expressed by a number of organisations about the quite draconian powers contained in Clauses 25 and 32 of the Bill. We all understand and accept the need to protect trade secrets, although I expect that the lawyers will have a field day in defining a "trade secret". The protection of a manufacturing process which may have no commercial value and which may involve an imminent risk of injury to health is not acceptable.
These amendments are not intended to be a whistle-blower's charter. They are intended to protect the public, which we understand is also the Government's object in this Bill. We hope therefore that the Minister will be able to consider them favourably. The Independent pointed out on 9th January that the penalties under this clause are the same as those prescribed in the new Official Secrets Act for unauthorised disclosure of information which damages the defences of Britain or its national security. It pointed out that most offences under that Act require the prosecution to show that disclosure was likely to cause harm. No evidence of harm will be needed to convict someone who makes a disclosure about hazards in food. That is an extremely important argument. We have no hesitation in supporting the amendments and we look forward to hearing that the Government are prepared to accept them.
Baroness Trumpington: In order to put noble Lords out of their misery I shall tell the Committee immediately, without giving a lengthy explanation, that I sympathise with the noble Lord's intention in putting forward the amendments. We had not realised that problems had arisen in the past. However, in view of the concern expressed on the subject, I am willing to take the matter away and give the issues further careful consideration. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I assure her that there is evidence of difficulties in the past. Even if the provision had been tested in the courts and found to be wanting, people might be inhibited by such a provision. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the matter seriously. I look forward to an amendment or some further discussions at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Regulations and orders: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 17, line 1, after ("regulations") insert ("or orders").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 106. Members of the Committee will notice that the title of the clause set out in the margin includes the words "Regulations and orders". Noble Lords will also notice that subsection (4) refers to:
"Regulations under this Part or an order under section 25".
It seems to me that it would be appropriate for consultations which are already required within subsection (1) to apply equally to orders under Clause 25 as well as to regulations contained in Clause 26. Indeed, that process should also apply to any regulations or orders in this part of the Bill. In my view this is merely a small omission and I hope that my noble friend will agree to accept what is proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The amendment would require Ministers to consult before exercising either of the two order-making powers under Part II of the Bill. The first such power allows Ministers to make emergency control orders. Such orders would of necessity have to be made very swiftly and there would be no time to carry out a consultation exercise before they were made.
The second order-making power would enable Ministers to collect information or food samples. That power is intended to supplement rather than replace the existing voluntary system. For example, the Government food surveillance programmes are at present based upon samples given voluntarily, but the order-making power would enable Ministers to take samples compulsorily should that prove necessary. However, such orders would only be made if voluntary approaches had failed. Consultation would clearly not help in such circumstances. Moreover, information gained in that way could on occasion be used to help reach a decision on whether regulations were needed. Interested parties would of course be consulted in the usual way before such regulations were made. I am afraid that, once again, I shall have to disappoint my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: I appreciate what my noble friend said. I shall take great pleasure in carefully reading her reply. I am not entirely sure that I am satisfied and I may return to the subject at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 4, after ("interests") insert ("including the interests of consumers").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment reflects the need for greater consumer representation on the various advisory committees. Despite the recent increase in consumer representation on the Food

819
Advisory Committee, there are still only two representatives out of a total of 15 committee members.
While I welcome the consumer panel newly set up by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to strengthen consumer output, it is not yet clear exactly what its role will be and how it will interact with the directorate and the various advisory committees. There is no consumer representation on the committee dealing with toxicity or, more important, on the Advisory Committee on Irradiated Novel Foods, which has a crucial role to play in the future.
In dealing with such matters as the use of biotechnology in the food industry and the controversial issue of irradiation, the committee should not just touch upon matters of scientific safety; it should also deal with the social and ethical implications of such new processes.
Consumer participation is especially important when it comes to the vexed question of whether new processes are really necessary. The regulation of food additives provides an example of where there are clearly two sets of criteria to be considered prior to approval; namely, safety and need. In the past, need has been interpreted very narrowly by the Food Advisory Committee in terms of the technological and economic need of the manufacturers for the additive in question. The regulatory process tends to be dominated at present by scientific debate; that is, debate which is obviously essential to establish safety but which often overlooks more human questions. In our view, consumer needs should be given more consideration in such assessments. It is that factor which has prompted the tabling of this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The consumer is central to the whole Bill: he is to be protected from bad food; he is to be offered irradiation although he says that he does not want it; but is he to be consulted on any of those measures? I am sure that the Minister will say, "Of course", but the Government's idea of consumer involvement is sometimes a pretty measly affair. If the Government wish to be seen to be on the public's side —they have a large credibility problem at present —a good way would be to write consumer consultation on the face of the Bill. Those interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations are sure to include the big battalions, and it is right that they should. Many of us would feel a great deal more confident about the interests of the public if the amendment were accepted.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Viscount's proposal is specifically to include consumer interests among those to be consulted who are likely to be substantially affected by the regulations. I of course believe that that is unnecessary. Consumers' interests are already fully recognised by Ministers as being in the forefront of interests to be consulted. An extensive list of consumer organisations is consulted regularly on a wide range of issues, including food legislative matters.
There is no need to highlight consumer interests in the Bill. In any case, they are already well covered
820
by the current wording. I think that I understood the noble Viscount to say that there was no consumer representation on some committees. Some of the committees that he enumerated are committees of experts to give Ministers the kind of information that we can be sure is scientifically correct, and they are not therefore for the amateur. That is why we have some committees composed only of scientific experts. We consult a great deal. I assure the Committee that the consumers' interests are very much to the forefront of the Government's thinking.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks. The committees to which I referred are too expert for one to expect the consumer to take a leading role. I was suggesting that there might be an increase in consumer participation even if it is on the edges of those committees. I take on board what the Minister says and I am generally encouraged by her recognition of what prompted the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("the public") and insert ("an authorised officer of an enforcement authority or such other persons as may be specified in the regulations").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to replace "the public" with a specified authorised officer of an enforcement authority
"or such other persons as may be specified in the regulations".
As time goes on perhaps even the public might be
"such other persons as may be specified",
but until the detail of the subsidiary provisions contained in subsection (3)(c) are specified, it does not appear appropriate to include reference to members of the public or any other specific group of people.
My noble friend the Minister may say that she believes that the only information to be disclosed on the register would be the name and address of the company and the number of employees. I wonder whether that is so. The detail of registration and licensing has yet to be established. There is concern that if such information is open to public inspection it could be abused, not just by commercial interests —for example, sales representatives —but by activists such as the Animal Liberation Front and "food terrorists". The Committee may be familiar with recent incidents when food terrorists have sought to upset large companies.
If the registered information is limited; that is, to little more than what appears in a telephone directory, that concern would be minimal. Such limited information however would be of little value to enforcement authorities, and the expectation is that the registered information about a company would be much more detailed and give information about types of activities and names of responsible personnel.
An amendment of this nature at this stage would be a suitable safeguard, because it would enable the Government to widen the number of persons

821
specified, as and when they saw what they required under the remaining headings of the clause. I hope that this argument will appeal to my noble friend the Minister and that she will be able to agree. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The register of food premises will contain a very limited amount of information such as the address of the premises, as my noble friend suggested; the nature and size of the business; and the name of the proprietor. It will not include detailed information on the running of the business. We believe that allowing the public access to the register has three major advantages. First, it will benefit the consumer because he or she will be able to check whether or not premises are known to the local authority and therefore whether or not the authority is monitoring hygiene standards. Secondly, it will benefit the industry. Reputable businesses sometimes suspect that they are being undercut by unscrupulous traders who cut corners on safety to keep down prices. If they have access to the register, they will be able to check whether or not those premises are registered. If they are not, the occupants may deliberately be trying to avoid inspection. At any rate, the reputable trader will be able to do something about it. Finally, we believe that public access will lead to better standards of enforcement as any gaps in the local authority's knowledge can be filled by the public.
I note the examples quoted by my noble friend which give rise to his concerns. But we believe that industry has nothing to fear fom public access to the register. Indeed, there are real advantages for all concerned. I hope that my noble friend will therefore agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am partially reassured by my noble friend's remarks, but not altogether. I may well come back at the next stage of the Bill with some alternative amendment in order to tackle the point. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 17, line 31, leave out ("or to a tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It raises the question of what kind of tribunals are envisaged under the regulations; how such tribunals will in themselves become appeal courts; and whether appellants will have any choice regarding which body they take their appeals to in order to be heard. I should be grateful if the Minister could give me some further information and clear up what for me is a somewhat unusual provision, particularly in regard to appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: It gives me great pleasure to support an amendment moved from the Opposition Front Bench for the first time during proceedings on the Bill.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: The main purpose of these provisions is to allow us to maintain the system of milk and dairies tribunals. It may help
822
noble Lords if I try to explain the need for this system. Our milk hygiene regime includes arrangements for registering dairy farmers and for licensing dairies in order to ensure that high standards are maintained so as to protect public health. If standards are not maintained the registration or licence can be cancelled by the Ministry or a local authority but this is a severe penalty because it effectively deprives the farmer or dairyman of his livelihood. Accordingly, there is a long established tribunal system to consider appeals against cancellation. The system works effectively in practice; it is inexpensive; and it enjoys the industry's confidence. This is, therefore, a case where there is much to be said for leaving well alone, and this evidently means that we must keep the enabling power. Accordingly, the Government are resisting the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: The noble Earl's resistance is unnecessary. He has jogged my memory about milk and dairies tribunals. That point did not impress itself upon me when I first read this provision, although I have reason to believe now that I am a member of a milk and dairies tribunal. That is for the reason that no one else whom I approached at the material time would agree to serve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appointment of public analysts]:
9. 30 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 18, line 4, leave out ("food authority") and insert ("authority to whom this section applies, that is to say, every food authority in England and Wales and every regional or islands council in Scotland,").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend and with the permission of the Committee I shall move Amendment No. 110 and speak to Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 114. Amendment No. 110 amends Clause 27 so that responsibility for the appointment of public analysts in Scotland rests with regional and islands councils. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are consequential. Amendment No. 114 empowers such authorities to provide facilities, if they wish, for microbiological examinations.
Lest any Member of the Committee should feel that these amendments are at variance with the stance which the Government adopted to the amendments to Clause 5 proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Ezra, perhaps I may offer some background. Responsibility for food matters in Scotland currently rests under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 with the environmental health departments of district and islands councils. This is unlike the situation in England and Wales where responsibility is split between environmental health and trading standards officers employed by different layers of local authorities. Because of this split, Clause 5(4)

823
empowers Ministers to make orders specifying which authority may carry out specific functions. This, as my noble friend explained, is not required in Scotland where there are unitary authorities, although Clause 5(6) enables an authorised officer to be other than an employee of the district and islands council so that TSOs could be called on to act on the council's behalf.
The position of public analysts is somewhat different. Public analysts carry out a range of duties outwith food. For example, they analyse pesticides, soil samples, materials and contents of certain foods, toys, etc, and carry out analysis for the police. In those areas they are employees of regional and islands councils. It clearly represents an economic use of resources for these analysts also to undertake the necessary work on food which they currently do. The amendments to Clauses 27 and 28 are designed to accommodate that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert ("provided that nothing in this Act shall preclude a person acting as a public analyst who may have received instructions from the proprietor of any food business, whether carried on in that area or otherwise, to undertake professional analytical work.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It arises from the drafting of the Bill and specifically the use of the word "indirectly" in Clause 27(2)(b). Although some local authorities employ public analysts on their staff, we are advised that there are others which employ consultants on a fee-paying basis. In that way a council receives the service it requires at a lower cost.
It follows that consultants and public analysts used by local authorities in this way should also be able to receive instruction as professional scientists from private firms, including food businesses. We are advised that the words used in Clause 27(2)(b), as drafted, would appear to preclude the use of private consultant analysts who act for food businesses as being persons engaged indirectly in a food business in the area. This is a probing amendment and we hope that the Minister can clarify the meaning of the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. However, we do not agree that the wording in the Bill should be changed. Clause 27(2) is designed to prevent any public analyst being so involved in the food industry as to bring about a conflict of interest. Public analysts are holders of public office and exist to assist in enforcement and trials. I hope that in view of that brief explanation the noble Lord will feel that I have solved his problem.
Lord Carter: I am not sure that the Minister has solved the problem because I am talking about the case of a private consultant who is acting as a public analyst. However, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee now. I shall read what the noble Baroness said and I may come back again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope I may write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Mottistone: Will my noble friend also write to me as she did not give me time to break into the discussion? I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall gladly write to my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert —
("( ) A public analyst may also be appointed as an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 111A, with the leave of the Committee I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 117A and 154A. In doing so, I should like leave to question the Minister on the future academic status of food examiners, starting with Clause 28(2). I shall also ask leave to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Amendment No. 117, which seeks to amend Clause No. 30.
My amendments and the comments and questions that I seek to ask all relate to the status of public status of public analysts, about whom I should like to ensure that the Committee is sufficiently informed, without making a Second Reading speech on the subject. Public analysts are defined in Statutory Instrument No. 273 of 1957 entitled The Public Analysts Regulations 1957. The only item that need concern the Committee is Regulation 2(a), which reads:
"A person appointed to be a public analyst under the Act" —
that is, the Food and Drugs Act 1955—
"shall either

(a) hold a diploma of fellowship or associateship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a certificate granted by that institute after an examination conducted by them in the chemistry including microscopy of food and drugs and water; or

(b) have held immediately before these regulations came into operation an appointment as a public analyst".

That implies that public analysts existed before the regulations and are an evolutionary body.
The words need updating in so far as at some time after 1957 the Chemical Society, a learned society, and the Royal Institute of Chemistry, a professional body, merged with a new charter to form the Royal Society of Chemistry which combines the work of its two merged predecessors.
The requirement for a public analyst is now that the candidate should hold a degree of Master of Chemical Analysis awarded by the Royal Society of Chemistry. The examination for that degree lasts a whole week.
Perhaps I may say a few general words about public analysts as they are today. There are about 100 qualified public analysts holding a master's degree, and of those some 80 are in practice. Without them the Bill would have no teeth and be inoperable. They are the cream of the cream of their profession. Many of them work for more than one local authority. I know one who works for no fewer than

825
eight. Some are self-employed, others are partners in a general practice. They operate always as individuals. They are all of the highest professional integrity. My amendments are all concerned with preserving their status, in grateful acknowledgment that I received part of my practical training in the laboratories of one of them.
Master of Chemical Analysis is a very advanced scientific qualification covering the analysis of foods, drugs and water together with related disciplines such as microbiology, pharmacology and food technology and the disciplines of sampling processes which are essential to water analysis. In addition public analysts must be familiar with no fewer than 27 Acts of Parliament, 28 including this one, making provision for their services, not to mention the rain of Statutory Instruments which descends from Ministers under the enabling powers in those Acts.
They have to maintain liaison with central government and the European Commission in the review of relevant national and Community legislation. In a very general sense they are advisers across the board on scientific matters to local government which, having no specific scientific qualifications, may require help in locating specialist advisers of whom it stands in need.
These are very special people. However, aware as I am of the limits of the patience of the Committee I shall cut short my panegyric at this point and refer the Committee to a study guide published by the Royal Society of Chemistry which I shall place in the Library at the end of the debate.
I come now to question the status of food examiners in the context of Clause 28(2) where "examination" is defined as "microbiological examination" and where "examine" is to be construed accordingly. Those definitions are applied in Clause 30(1) where an authorised officer should have the option of submitting a sample to a public analyst or, (b), to a food examiner according to his judgment of the most appropriate choice.
Turning to Clause 30(8) I find:
" 'food examiner' means any person who possesses the requisite qualifications to carry out examinations for the purposes of this Act".
Next,
"'the requisite qualification' means such qualifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers, or such other qualifications as the Ministers may approve".
But what are these to be? The word "examine" is tied to microbiological examination. The public analysts already do this work and are hallmarked by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Who will hallmark the examiners? There is indeed a Chartered Institute of Biology, of which I have the honour to be a fellow. Such people would be competent to hallmark food examiners, but will the Minister set about asking them to do so or not?
Unless an authorised person is technologically qualified as a public analyst or a hallmarked food examiner, how is he supposed to discriminate between who would be more appropriate to refer a sample to? I badly need answers to these questions with a view to bringing these matters forward again at a later stage in the Bill.
I now turn to my Amendment No. 111A.
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder if I might intervene?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before the noble Baroness intervenes, if the noble Earl moves this amendment then the noble Baroness can no doubt intervene. Amendment proposed, page 18, line 13, at end insert the words as printed.
Baroness Trumpington: What I wanted to say was that the noble Earl has me and indeed the Committee at a slight disadvantage. There is a certain grouping, and we are now considering Amendment No. 111A which stands on its own. In the grouping Amendment No. 117A is grouped with Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. I am going to tell the Committee some secrets in advance, which makes it even more difficult for me to speak to the grouping as the noble Earl has arranged it.
I intend to resist the noble Earl's present amendment; I intend to consider his following amendment; and Amendment No. 154A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 154, I shall resist. It does not marry up if we break the grouping. I am entirely at the disposal of the noble Earl, but I wonder whether we may deal with Amendment No. 111A as it stands, and perhaps the noble Earl would then like to come back. Would that be suitable to the noble Earl?
The Earl of Halsbury: I have always understood that the rule of groupings is that by the leave of the Committee one is not bound to stick to them. That is why I started my remarks in moving Amendment No. 111A by seeking the permission of the Committee to group with it amendments not as grouped on the grouping paper. But if that creates difficulties for the noble Baroness I am content to speak to Amendment No. 111A and then follow the grouping that she suggests.
Baroness Trumpington: I was trying to be as helpful as I could to the noble Earl by saying what I did. I hope that he is not upset.
The Earl of Halsbury: No. The purpose of Amendment No. 111A is to enable the main, positive argument to be put in favour of public analysts and their role, and to ensure that there is a strong scientific influence on the enforcement of food safety by the involvement of professionally and scientifically qualified public analysts.
Public analysts are already employed as authorised officers in some cases. One specific example is in Lancashire. The amendment simply writes current practice into the Bill. It thereby prevents any future argument. The practice current before the Bill is not a precedent for anything to be done after its enactment. The appointment of public analysts as authorised officers will become more and more desirable in the light of the EC directive, which I must say represents the biggest single leap forward in respect of food safety since the Food Act of 1860. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have already put the Question to the Committee whether this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Mottistone: I do not know whether the noble Earl will agree but I should be very happy to move his subsequent amendments formally later if my noble friend the Minister could talk about them now.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I can assist in this matter. I think that the problem here is that although it might be useful to group together all the noble Earl's amendments, nevertheless they impinge on other people's amendments, with which they are also grouped. I feel that it would be proper for the Committee to deal with the amendments in the groupings that exist on the list in order that other people's amendments which touch on similar subjects can be dealt with at the right time. I believe that we have to proceed along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: I listened with great interest to everything that the noble Earl had to say about public analysts. I am also concerned to maintain their status and their role. I accept that in some cases the same individuals may also be able to undertake the duties of food examiners. I believe that the proposed amendment, Amendment No. 111A, is unnecessary. Clause 5(6) of the Bill provides for any person, whether or not he is an officer of the authority, to act as an authorised officer for a food authority. Thus, a public analyst could be appointed as an authorised officer for a food authority if that authority thought it appropriate.
In view of that brief explanation I hope that the noble Earl will not press that particular amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: In view of the assurance given to me by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Earl has spoken to Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Does he wish to move them en bloc?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 112 and 113:
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("A food authority") and insert ("An authority to whom this section applies").
Page 18, line 19, leave out ("A food authority") and insert ("An authority to whom this section applies").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of facilities for examinations]:
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 18, line 31, after ("authority") insert ("in England and Wales, or a regional or islands council in Scotland,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 18, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not grouped with any other amendment. It brings us back to our old friends "may" and "shall". Local authorities acting as food authorities are given the power in Clause 28 of the Bill to provide facilities for the examination of food for safety purposes. The examination is defined as meaning a microbiological examination. The amendment is put forward on the basis that it will be preferable for there to be a duty to secure the protection of the public.
Behind that argument, as I am sure the Minister will recognise, is a concern among local authorities that the funding of the provision of such facilities and their upgrading in line with the rising expectations of the public should be enshrined in the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could give a clear commitment to local authorities, as she has done on previous clauses with other amendments concerned with resources, that the Government will place the safety of food above financial constraints in producing a proper system for the protection of the public in which the citizen may have confidence and within which the local authority may operate according to professional rather than financial criteria.
As I said, this matter was touched upon in previous amendments. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that she understands the argument behind the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment would require food authorities to provide facilities for the microbiological examination of food samples. We believe that to require them to do so would be unnecessary and would entail a waste of resources.
In most cases, environmental health officers make use of the resources of the public health laboratory service for the analysis of samples. The public health laboratory service has 52 area and regional laboratories in England and Wales. They are thus well dispersed across the country, and their facilities are readily available. The Committee may also be interested to know that local authorities sometimes also have access to National Health Service laboratories attached to hospitals. In Scotland, food samples from environmental health departments are examined in NHS laboratories. In some cases, environmental health officers send samples to the public analyst or indeed to a private laboratory. The Bill would not prevent them using any of these facilities for the examination of samples. For most local authorities, the facilities which I have just described are adequate.
However, Clause 28 of the Bill, which contains very similar wording to Section 77 of the Food Act 1984, is necessary for the small number of local authorities which have such a large number of samples requiring analysis that the facilities of the public health laboratory service and the National Health Service hospitals are unable to cope. These local authorities are able under this clause to provide additional facilities for their own use. As an example, the borough of King's Lynn provides its own facility

829
because that authority has within its district major food manufacturing companies. The London borough of Hillingdon also provides its own facilities because that authority is responsible for Heathrow Airport and the large quantity of food produced in that area requires a large number of routine checks to be carried out. It is essential that we should retain the clause allowing local authorities to provide these facilities if they need them. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I believe that she has met the concerns we have expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Procurement of samples]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("or examination") and insert (", examination or other investigation").
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who is unable to be here, I should like to move this amendment. As currently worded, Clause 29(1) gives power to an authorised officer to procure samples for analysis or examination only.
Clause 28(2) defines "examination" as a microbiological examination, which limits it to a hygiene measure. Trading standards officers entering a manufacturing outlet to ensure that any foodstuff has not been adulterated or misdescribed are in effect limited in their powers of procurement to those samples for analysis. That inhibits the inspectors in their wish to examine labels, which is most important. Clause 30(1)(a) places a requirement on the officer in these circumstances to submit the sample to a public analyst.
Advances in modern technology have enabled manufacturers either at home or abroad to adopt techniques which can lead to adulteration and fraud on an extensive scale. By way of example, substances such as bone protein or blood powder are available on the open market and can be added to a meat product artificially to inflate the apparent meat content on analysis or disguise the presence of added water. Soft wheat has been used to adulterate Durum —hard —wheat products such as pasta.
Such frauds are extrememly difficult to detect on analysis. Moreover, there is as yet no scientific method to determine the presence of mechanically recovered meat in meat products —an ingredient of some concern to the Government's own Food Advisory Committee. Those are but a few of such problems facing food authorities in this respect.
Enforcement officers investigating these and other similar matters may need to consult, in addition to the public analyst, other experts including those in fruit, vegetables and honey, and meat and fish technologists, electron microscopists and forensic scientists.
Finally, Clause 29(2)(d) enables an officer to take samples,
"of any article or substance … which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings".
That is a welcome and necessary additional power and would, for example, enable the officer to produce to a court relevant ingredients, or even a piece of machinery or equipment, which had been used in the adulteration of the product. This subsection, however, is brought into effect by virtue of subsection (1) which again would appear to limit the procurement of such samples to those for analysis or examination. The proposed amendment would give the necessary flexibility to enforcement officers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: I must oppose the amendment with everything that I have. In my view, it would completely undermine the status of public analysts and hallmarked —assuming that they are —food examiners and weaken the Bill beyond repair.
Public analysts are special people and hallmarked examiners ought to be so too. To allow run-of-the-mill investigators to provide an alternative would be to degrade public analysts and food examiners to the status of a luxury rather than a necessity. I am afraid that I must raise my voice against the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment introduces the concept of an investigation alongside that of analysis and examination. But there is no indication of what happens with a sample taken from an investigation. The purpose of this and subsequent provisions of the Bill is to provide an orderly framework for the gathering of evidence to be put before a court. That evidence is gathered in such a way that the court can be assured as to its expertise and validity. We believe that amendment would leave a loose end in this part of the Bill.
For the great majority of cases any analysis or examination of a food sample can be carried out by a public analyst or food examiner. It is of course possible that a public analyst or food examiner could seek expert opinion from elsewhere where such other expert opinion might be required.
The examples of bonemeal and blood products to meat products quoted by the noble Viscount would require analysis, and the clause as drafted would cover them. I understand from the noble Viscount that he envisages circumstances —for example, in cases of fraud and deception —where it might be necessary to take a sample not for analysis or microbiological examination, but for some other type of examination. I shall investigate whether there is a need to extend the provisions in the clause, and if necessary bring forward a more appropriate amendment at a later stage.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness. I shall convey her remarks to my noble friend. He has been more fortunate than I was in

831
respect of my amendment, and I am happy to carry the good news to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Analysis etc. of samples.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 19, line 12, after ("area") insert ("either for the area where the initial investigation is being pursued or").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 and 117A. We have tabled the amendment because we fail to understand the reason for the restriction in Clause 30(1)(a) regarding the area in which a sample is procured. We see no reason why enforcement authorities should be restricted to submitting samples to the public analyst for the area in which they are procured. There is always controversy about the power of enforcement officers to continue their investigation outside their area. We foresee circumstances in which it would be possible that with the agreement of another authority, an enforcement officer may wish to pursue his investigations at a factory or importer's premises where further samples may be obtained.
It would be far more sensible if the restriction were removed so that the enforcement authorities could use a public analyst in the area where the sample was procured or in the area where the initial investigation was being pursued. There are considerable complexities in the food chain and I hope that the Minister is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I support this amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: Again, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra. In the vast majority of cases, authorised officers will act within their own areas under what is termed the home authority principle, sampling foodstuffs and ingredients and submitting them to their own public analyst. However, on occasions retail samples of products actually produced outside the authority on analysis are reported as either incorrect or suspect and further inquiries have to be undertaken at the point of manufacture.
Such inquiries have involved sampling the ingredients used in manufacture, a point particularly relevant given the ease by which certain ingredients can be used to assist in the mis-description of the product. The use of imitation cheese as a replacement for genuine cheese on pizzas is but one example.
The officer conducting those investigations outside his own area is given the relevant authority to enter such premises by virtue of Clause 32(1)(b) and to sample ingredients by virtue of Clause 29(2)(b). Under Clause 30(1)(a), he has to submit the samples obtained at the food manufacturer to the public analyst in the area in which it was procured. That appears to be an unnecessary technical restriction on enforcement.
832
The only analyst who will be able to analyse the ingredients and interpret the results to establish the effect they might have on the original product under investigation is the analyst who undertook the original analysis, working closely with the officer from his own authority who undertakes the actual investigation.
There is a precedent for this amendment under current food law by virtue of Section 81 of the Food Act 1984. Samples of milk obtained from a dairy outside the local authority area in pursuit of inquiries are deemed to have been procured within the local authority area. The equivalent of Clause 30(1)(a) is Section 79(1) of the Food Act 1984 which states:
"he shall submit it to be analysed by the public analyst for the area in which the sample was, or is deemed to have been, procured".
Therefore, this amendment only reflects good and logical enforcement practice.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Earl would now wish to speak to Amendment No. 117A which is in his name.
The Earl of Halsbury: The purpose of this amendment is to support the principle of flexibility tabled on this issue by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Gallacher and Lord Ezra, but specifically to assert the right of the public analyst who has been consulted to be further consulted and agree to any investigation being pursued elsewhere. It seems a matter of professional courtesy that that should be so.
Baroness Trumpington: It is clearly practicable that the same analyst should be used for the whole of one investigation when samples need to be taken in other areas. I am doubtful whether it is essential, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggests, to obtain the agreement of a local analyst in every case because on some occasions that could cause difficulties for enforcement authorities, especially if, for example, the local public analyst was absent from the area at the time the sample needed to be taken.
However, I can agree in principle to the substance of these proposals. I must examine the wording further but in view of my assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: In view of the words of the noble Baroness, of course I shall not press the amendment this evening but will await the result of her further studies on this subject.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 118 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Regulation of sampling and analysis etc.]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 20, line 19, after ("may") insert (", after consulting such persons or organisations likely to be substantially affected").
The noble Viscount said: I speak also to Amendment No. 120. These are important powers and although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consults on a voluntary basis, we would prefer a statutory requirement for it to do so. We accept that it may be necessary to hold urgent consultations especially in cases of dire emergency; for example Chernobyl-type incidents. However, if trading standards officers are to be appointed to the new food safety directorate, that will help. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My name is attached to Amendment No. 120 which is grouped with this amendment. The Minister has been making helpful noises throughout the Bill about her wish to consult with other organisations so I shall be interested to hear her views on consultation with food authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful for the proposals, for which I have considerable sympathy. Instead of giving endless explanations it might be better if I simply say that I am prepared to consider the matter. I hope we can bring forward a government amendment which will suit noble Lords.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness. I am encouraged by that remark; I shall pass it on to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 21, line 5, leave out ("whether within or outside") and insert ("within").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 122, for which Amendment No. 121 is in effect a paving amendment. One imagines the purpose of this part of the clause is to grant an authorised officer a right to enter premises, notably vehicles, outside his authority's area only when he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a contravention of the law, particularly in regard to a food safety matter.
The amendment is somewhat vague but I seek to ensure that routine inspection of premises should be the prerogative of the local enforcement authority which, through the registration procedure, will be best acquainted with the operations carried out on the premises. The outside authority should be discouraged from extending investigations beyond its own territory. I am not sure that the amendments as phrased convey that intention adequately. I can understand that the wording needs to be improved, but the purpose is as I have described. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope my explanation will satisfy my noble friend. If it does not, we will be considering many other points at some future time. So why not this.
Enforcement officers are employed by food authorities which are responsible for their actions
834
and the proper use of their resources. Any enforcement officer who entered premises outside his own area would only do so if it was a necessary part of following up an inquiry originating in his own area. For example, it would be necessary for an officer to cross borders when following up an inquiry about consignments of unfit meat. Also, if an officer needed to check the accuracy of an organic label it is likely that he would have to follow up his inquiry on a farm situated in a different area.
To restrict his power of entry by always requiring suspicion of a contravention within his own area would inhibit the proper conduct of an inquiry. However, we do not wish to give enforcement officers unrestricted and complete freedom of movement. It is intended that they will be obliged to notify the food authority of the area entered giving reasons for so doing. This will probably be achieved in one of the codes of practice referred to in Clause 39. I therefore believe my noble friend's concerns to be unwarranted. I find my explanation perfectly logical; I hope my noble friend will also.
Lord Mottistone: I find my noble friend's explanation perfectly logical because she has brought into assistance Clause 39, which did not occur to me. She has the power to do that when she wishes. The object of my amendment is met, but I think it might be improved and perhaps we might come back at a later stage. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 121.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 21, line 11, at end insert —
("(d) to take such photographs as he considers necessary for the purpose of any examination or investigation under section 32(1)(a) above,").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124. It has always been a contentious issue as to whether enforcement officers are entitled to take photographs for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been on the premises any contravention of the provisions of an Act and of similar consumer protection legislation. We are therefore seeking an assurance from the Minister that the taking of photographs is included within the wording of,
"for the purpose of ascertaining".
I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Enforcement officers are entitled to take photographs during their investigations into food law offences, just as any citizen can take photographs subject to specific prohibitions. The absence of an express provision in existing law should not have prevented them from doing this to date. There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent them from continuing to do so.
Specifying the power to take photographs would, we believe, be exclusive and would imply that other forms of recording evidence were barred. This is not,

835
and should not be, the case. I would add that neither the Consumer Protection Act 1987 nor the Trades Description Act 1968 refers to the taking of photographs. To make an explicit reference here could cast needless doubt on the use of photography by enforcement officers operating under those Acts. Therefore we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness very much for her help and guidance. I shall discuss the matter with my noble friend Lord Ezra. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 21, line 28, leave out ("one month") and insert ("28 days").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment. It is desirable to have greater precision as regards the duration of a warrant than a month which can vary in length of time. Twenty-eight days would be more suitable. Until Amendment No. 98 was accepted by the Committee, this amendment was the only place in the Bill in which time was expressed other than in days. It was therefore consistent. That fact has been breached by the other amendment which I shall seek to amend at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that this amendment is also unnecessary. By virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978 "one month" would be interpreted as one calendar month. That is a convenient approach since it means that a warrant issued, say, the third day of one month will expire by the third day of the following month whatever the length of the month may be. One month is used for the lifetime of a warrant in current legislation and also in other consumer protection measures. That works perfectly well.
The amendment would make the Food Safety Bill anomalous in referring to 28 days. We therefore believe that no useful purpose would be served in agreeing to this amendment and I trust that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Mottistone: This amendment is not worth pushing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 21, line 35, leave out ("inspect") and insert ("require the production of, inspect and take copies or).
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 128. As with Amendment No. 123, we are seeking an assurance that the word "inspect" includes the requirement to produce, inspect and to allow the taking of copies. Parliamentary draftsmen are reluctant to give examples of what is meant by ascertaining or inspecting. Enforcement officers are content to leave the terms vague as long as there is an assurance, which I hope the noble Baroness can
836
give, that the enforcement officers can say to the magistrate that it was Parliament's intention that these words should be construed widely and not narrowly.
As with Amendments Nos. 123 and 126, Amendment No.128 seeks an assurance that the use of the word "detain" means that copies can also be taken when there may not be a wish actually to retain the originals. That will enable the production of copies at a later date if the originals have perchance disappeared. I beg to move.
10.15 pm.
Baroness Hooper: Our proposal in the Bill is to enable officers to seize evidence for production in court—hence the seizing of originals is more appropriate than taking copies. Nevertheless, if the proprietor needs copies, they would and could be supplied to him. The power to inspect and seize the originals implies a power to take copies too, and has always been interpreted in that way. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I again thank the noble Baroness for that guidance. We shall examine what she has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 21, line 35, after ("any") insert ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: In Clause 32 the authorised officer has an enormous amount of power which is underpinned by the rather frightening, although I am sure necessary, Clause 33(1). It is important that he should have access only to relevant records, as specified in my amendment. It cannot be right that the officer should be able to go trampling all over the establishment and look at all records of the food business, including, for example, personnel records, records of trading over many years, and so on.
As the Bill is presently drafted, he could do all those things. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention, and probably would not be the intention of the food authority, that he should do so. But one knows how aggressive officials can become if they are given great power. It would be wise for the Government to accept the amendment, or if they cannot accept it, to consider whether my fears are not justified and that something of this kind needs to be done. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I support my noble friend. I have in mind matters such as VAT records. Where we are attempting to protect one agency against the incursion of another agency, it would be quite wrong to give a food enforcement officer powers to examine the VAT records or other matters which are confidential between the business and Customs and Excise and have nothing to do with the matters dealt with in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I hope I am always sympathetic. We always look very hard at amendments which are put before us. However, we believe that this amendment, once again, is unnecessary. Examination of records will take place only when relevant to the enforcement of the Bill, and any regulations or orders made thereunder, when the contravention or suspected contravention is being investigated. We do not believe that it is necessary to limit further an authorised officer's powers. I trust therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Lord Airedale: The words which the Minister has just used do not appear in the Bill. If she is not prepared to insert the word "relevant" which the amendment requires, is she prepared to insert in the Bill the words which she has just used in attempting to demonstrate that the word "relevant" is unnecessary?
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a very good one. Indeed, you can get an enforcement officer investigating matters which are no business of his. In my view, this is an important matter.
Baroness Hooper: My understanding is that the powers of entry of authorised officers are limited to those set out in Clause 31(1). Inspectors will therefore be able to examine records only relating to the activities covered by the Food Act and regulations or orders made thereunder.
Lord Mottistone: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, put his finger right on the point. My noble friend actually used the word "relevant" when describing what the officers are allowed to do. Moreover, she now refers to a part of the Bill which will be enforced by regulation. Therefore, we must take her word for it that the regulation will be stiff enough. When she uses that argument, she is resisting the word "relevant". However, it does not seem to me to be at all duplicatory, or against the principle of what my noble friend is saying is in the Bill, to insert the word "relevant" where I wish it to be.
I am not at all satisfied, but I shall not take it further at this time of night because it might upset the whole applecart; and, in any event, there is probably not a sufficient number of noble Lords present for a Division. However, if this discussion was taking place at an earlier time of the day, I should certainly test the feeling of the Committee on the matter. I shall return to the issue at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, unless my noble friend thinks carefully about it and puts forward a similar amendment. At this stage, I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128, 129 and 130 not [moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert —
("( ) An authorised officer entering premises by virtue of this section, or of a warrant issued under this section, may require any person to afford him such facilities and assistance with respect to any matter or things within that person's control
838
or in relation to which that person has responsibilities as are necessary to enable the authorised officer to exercise any of the powers conferred on him by this section.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 132. Both amendments are in effect the same. Therefore I take it that what I say about this amendment will suffice if it is decided to proceed with Amendment No. 132.
What is proposed is an additional clause which would require persons in control of a food business to co-operate with the enforcement officers in order to facilitate an investigation. That would include permitting interviews to take place on the premises, ensuring that staff were available for interview, and so on. It has been represented to us that the powers being sought in this proposed new clause are compatible with existing provisions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
I gather that from time to time enforcement officers encounter a measure of obstruction. In order to counteract that situation wherever it arises, it is suggested that an additional clause along the lines set out in Amendment No. 131 would be helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 33 already provides for the prosecution of anyone who obstructs or fails to assist the enforcement officer in the execution of his duties without reasonable cause. It is therefore implied that an enforcement officer would be able to require any person to assist him in carrying out his duties. I note the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but my understanding is that that Act is unusual in containing such a provision. Therefore I trust that in the light of the assurance I have given in respect of Clause 33 the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It has been represented to us that obstruction under the Bill may be encouraged by the fact that the fine for obstruction, which I believe is of the order of £2,000, could seem to some people to be worth incurring to avoid an even greater fine if they did not obstruct and a more serious offence was detected. That is partly the thinking behind the amendment.
I take the Minister's point that under Clause 33 provision is already made by implication for that eventuality. That is to some extent reassuring. The fact that the Health and Safety at Work Act is unusual in that regard does not, I hope, exclude the possibility of picking up better features in other legislation. The Committee will be aware—this is a point to which we shall come—that there is a substantial body of opinion in this country which takes the view that enforcement would be better undertaken by a body akin to the Health and Safety at Work Commission, enjoying somewhat similar powers to those of that commission.
I do not wish to press the amendment this evening, but nevertheless it may be necessary for us to look at it again. I do not regard the fact that we have

839
chosen to refer to another piece of unusual legislation necessarily excludes emulation. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Time limit for prosecutions]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 136, which is consequential on Amendment No. 135. The amendments would reduce the outside limit of three years for prosecution to one year and from one year to six months. Three years is too long, because memories and circumstances surrounding offences would be much impaired, making it difficult to prove whether a particular product is the cause of a particular complaint. It is inconceivable that an injury would not manifest itself well within three years of the consumption. No injury or distress can be caused, under the terms of the Bill, without a foodstuff having been consumed. It is surely inconceivable that that would not manifest itself well within three years. I cannot think of a food product which has a shelf life of up to three years, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give an illustration.
There is a further point to which I should like an answer, though not necessarily tonight. Let us suppose that a company was prosecuted after it had changed hands. Would that sale become unlawful or in any way endangered because there had been no disclosure of an impending prosecution? That could happen, especially in a small retail business. Alternatively, if there was a hint that there might be a prosecution, that investigations were continuing, and that impending prosecution was not disclosed, would it invalidate the sale? There are two issues here. I am mostly concerned with the former, but I should like an answer to the latter at some time. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment, but I believe that it is inappropriate. The time limits of three years from commission/one year from discovery mirror to a large extent the existing provisions in the 1984 Food Act, although I recognise that without the previous time constraints on the handling of samples they will bite more in the future. However, I believe our proposals strike the right balance. They allow sufficient time for enforcement authorities to prepare a case but still require the case to be taken to court within a reasonable period. These time limits are completely in accord with those found in other consumer protection legislation such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
I cannot offhand think of an example to give to my noble friend as he requested. But on the subject
840
of the successor company and whether it could be prosecuted, I believe it would be normal legal practice to ensure that the warranties and disclosure in relation to the transfer of the business would cover this. Nevertheless, I shall look into it and if necessary write further to my noble friend on the point. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for her explanation. I am of course somewhat amused that she calls in aid the 1984 Act when it suits her, but when it suits me she feels that it is not appropriate. However that is the way matters go and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Punishment of offences]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 22, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 138 as well as moving Amendment No. 137. It has always been argued by the enforcement officers, unsuccessfully, that the offence of obstruction should carry the same penalty as the offence itself. Otherwise, if it is lower by £1,800 for offences under Sections 7, 8 or 14, which are the important sections, there is a clear advantage or incitement for prospective offenders to obstruct the enforcement officer. The same remarks apply to Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to support the principle of the amendment. I think that this is a point which I raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. It is very wrong that an obstruction should carry any less penalty than if someone had committed the offence. I have quoted examples and it is well known that people obstruct. There is a parallel with drunken driving where if a person refuses to give a breath test or blood test, that person is treated as having committed the offence and the penalty is the same. I think that this should be parallel. Whether the wording is right I do not know, but it is an important issue.
Baroness Hooper: Despite what the noble Viscount and my noble friend have said, I feel it is difficult to justify an increase in the penalty for an offence which in itself is not a contravention of the main provisions. In determining what levels of penalty are appropriate the possible motive for an offence should not be relevant. We have in any case increased the penalty which is currently available for comparable offences in the 1984 Food Act. At present there is only a maximum of a £2,000 fine and no possibility of imprisonment.
The Viscount of Falkland: At this late hour I have tried to follow closely what the noble Baroness has said. It still seems to me to be strange, I am not

841
quite happy about the problem of incitement and encouragement for people to obstruct. I shall take this away and consult with my noble friend. I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("8 or 14") and insert ("or 8").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 35(3) rightly proposes increased penalties for offences under Clauses 7 and 8 which deal with rendering and selling food which is injurious to health. This reflects the importance of a safe food supply. As it stands, the Bill would impose similar penalties for offences under Clause 14 which deals with the nature, quality or substance of the food supplied. My amendment would remove Clause 14 offences from the higher penalty of £20,000 imposed under the subsection. Instead they would be dealt with under paragraph (b) where the penalty is the lower statutory maximum. This is set by ministerial order under the magistrates court and currently stands at £2,000. The suggestion is in line with my contention that this difference in penalties should not exist.
I do not wish to suggest that offences under Clause 14 are unimportant, but they seem less serious than those under Clauses 7 and 8. The latter, as I have said, deal with food safety. A person guilty of an offence under these clauses would thus be selling something which could harm or even kill someone. Clause 14 on the other hand deals with selling food not of the quality or the substance demanded by the purchaser. This might mean selling non-vintage wine as vintage or a restaurant claiming that vegetables are fresh when they might be frozen or tinned. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I can assure my noble friend that we have good reason for proposing an exceptional summary maximum fine of £20,000 for offences committed under Clause 14. This is an important provision which covers among other things the cases where false claims cause harm to those who are particularly vulnerable or with special needs such as those who unfortunately suffer from diabetes. We clearly need an effective penalty to match the seriousness of the harm that can be caused where the product does not meet the consumer's particular requirements. That does not mean that fines of this scale will be imposed for less serious offences. Indeed the concern is normally that courts impose inadequate fines.
There are two other reasons why we need the £20,000 maximum fine. If a large company is involved, its potential for causing harm to quite a wide range of people is very large indeed. A mere fine of £2,000 in a magistrates' court may not always be an adequate deterrent. If one is not merely being negligent but also plans to make a lot of money through selling debased food, again one might well choose to take the risk if the maximum fine the
842
magistrates can give is £2,000. For these reasons, I feel that we must retain the £20,000 maximum that we have. I accept that there is always the possibility of proceedings on indictment for the most serious breaches of Clause 14, but our experience is that the vast majority of food law cases are considered in the magistrates' court. We must therefore ensure that adequate penalties are available to the magistrates for use if necessary. I trust that my noble friend will accept that explanation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Appeals to magistrates' court or sheriff]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 23, line 37, at end insert ("or the terms of that notice").
The noble Baroness said: This is a small probing amendment. Clause 37 deals with appeals against improvement notices. The amendment simply seeks to make clear that an aggrieved person might have the right to appeal in respect of part of an improvement notice as well as against the whole of such a notice. It could be that the proprietor of a business accepts that nine-tenths of what he is asked to do is reasonable but objects to one-tenth. The amendment would allow him to appeal against that one-tenth. My noble friend earlier gave an undertaking to re-examine the wording of Clause 10 when we debated Amendment No. 38 on the form of improvement notices. This is a rather similar point which I hope may be viewed favourably.
It may be that the amendment is unnecessary because the concept of an appeal against part of a notice may be contained within the existing clause. I should very much like my noble friend to clarify whether that is so. Does the wording of the clause follow that of the existing legislation in which a precedent has already been established? If so, there is clearly nothing to worry about; but if that is not the case clarification in the Bill may be appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that an improvement notice may contain a number of different deficiencies, all of which need to be put right. I can assure my noble friend that Clause 37 already allows an aggrieved person to appeal against the individual requirements of an improvement notice. Her amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I also intended to remind my noble friend —she has already mentioned it —that I have already agreed to look again at Clause 10. That clause states at present that the enforcement officer may specify the steps which the owner of a food business must take in order to comply with an improvement notice. I explained that we do not intend to involve food businesses, especially smaller businesses, in any

843
unnecessary expense. We should prefer to specify the end result rather than the means by which the result should be achieved. I trust that that reassures my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("11(5)") and insert ("11(6)").
The noble Lord said: My advisers have spotted a printing error which the amendment corrects. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I commend my noble friend for his most thorough scrutiny of the Bill which brought this typing error to light. I have no hesitation in accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 142 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. Amendment No. 142 is a paving amendment for the two subsequent amendments. Even at the risk of slowing down the proceedings of the Committee, I feel that the amendments are very important. They introduce two additional rights of appeal. I know that it would be the wish of the Government to draw a fair balance between the supplier of food and the retailer.
The argument for all the amendments is the same. Amendment No. 143 would introduce a right of appeal in relation to Clause 12 of the Bill, which, the Committee will recall, provides powers for enforcement authorities to serve emergency prohibition notices. After the notice has been served the authorised officer will apply for an emergency prohibition order. There is provision for compensation by the enforcement authority for any loss suffered by the proprietor of the business in complying with the emergency prohibition notice if the magistrates' court or the sheriff refuses to impose the emergency order.
In welcoming the compensation provision one has to recognise it perhaps as a means of discouraging over-zealous enforcement officers from serving unnecessary notices. However, the amount of compensation is unlikely to make up for the potential adverse effect on the business of a retailer who has a prohibition notice displayed in a prominent position as required by Clause 12, even if that notice is displayed for only a few days.
The enforcing authorities are provided with extensive new powers. My noble friend Lord Mottistone emphasised that when he spoke to Amendment 127. I believe therefore that the Government should be seeking to strike a fair balance because the new powers are quite considerable. Those powers include the ability to
844
shut down a business, which would obviously affect its prosperity and even its very existence.
Until the hearing in a magistrates' court there is nothing under this Bill —at least so far as I can see —that the proprietor can do to put his case. It seems only just and equitable therefore for a retailer, or any other food business proprietor, to have the immediate right of appeal against a prohibition notice. Hence Amendment No. 143, which provides for such an appeal.
10.45 p.m.
Amendment No. 144 to Clause 37 would for the same reasons provide an immediate right of appeal in respect of the powers of enforcement officers to issue a notice, or seize goods under Clause 9(3) of the Bill. That subsection enables authorised officers either to give notice to a person in charge of food that the food cannot be used for human consumption and can only be moved if allowed by the notice, or to seize food and remove it to be dealt with by a justice of the peace or sheriff, as the case may be.
It will be an offence knowingly to contravene the requirements of a notice under this clause, and I therefore suggest that this right of appeal common to both amendments is only fair. I regard this amendment as fundamental and serious. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should like strongly to support my noble friend's amendments.
Baroness Hooper: This is a complex subject and I shall endeavour to describe as clearly as possible the procedure. An enforcement officer may serve an emergency prohibition notice on the proprietor of a food business if he is satisfied that it presents an imminent risk of danger to health. The wording is important because it means that he cannot serve an emergency prohibition notice merely on suspicion, and it also means that the danger must be unusually great.
The officer must apply to a court within three days for an emergency prohibition order, and he must give the proprietor at least one day's notice of his intention to do so. If he does not apply, the notice lapses and the authority has to compensate the proprietor for any losses that he sustained as a result of complying with the notice. If the enforcement officer does apply, the proprietor has the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to contest the application. If the court refuses to make an order confirming the prohibition, again the authority has to pay compensation.
A proprietor is therefore assured that if the enforcement officer intends to pursue the matter there will be a speedy start to proceedings and he will get automatic compensation in full if the enforcement officer's decision is not upheld. A right of appeal against an emergency prohibition notice is therefore unnecessary.
My noble friend has also asked for an appeal against an enforcement authority's decision to serve an emergency prohibition order. As I have just

845
explained, an emergency prohibition order is not made by the enforcement authority, but by the magistrates' court. If my noble friend will look at Clause 38 he will see that the Bill allows a proprietor to appeal to the Crown Court against the magistrates' court's decision. I therefore hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation. Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that I am grateful to him for his support. It is late. I think I have taken in what the Minister had to say; namely, that the enforcement officer has to make his application for the order within three days, and that he has to give one day's notice. Nevertheless an immense amount of damage can be done to the business in that time. It is exactly that problem, particularly with a small business, that worries me.
I accept that under Clause 38 the injured party has a further right of appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates' court, by which time the damage has been done to his business, because notices in a prominent place attract the interest both of the passing public and indeed the media.
Were it earlier in the day, I should have liked to pursue the argument. As it is, I do not think that the Committee would thank me for doing so now. I should like to consider carefully the noble Baroness's response and indeed take further advice on it. But it is my intention to come back to this matter at a later stage in the Bill, when perhaps this Chamber may have the benefit of making a judgment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Appeals to Crown Court]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No.145:
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("determination") and insert ("dismissal").
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment and I hope that at this late hour the Committee will bear with my somewhat technical explanation. It is designed to ensure that enforcement authorities do not have two avenues of appeal to a higher court if they wish to challenge the determination of an initial appeal by a magistrates' court. This may be relevant, for example, where a magistrates' court has upheld an appeal against the issue of an improvement notice and the enforcement authority wishes to appeal against that decision.
Clause 37 permits appeal to a magistrates' court against various decisions of an enforcement authority. As presently drafted, Clause 38(a) would enable any person aggrieved by the result of such an appeal to take a further appeal to the Crown Court. This is not however the usual avenue of appeal for a prosecutor, in this case the enforcement authority. Normally a prosecutor would appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court.
Therefore, the amendment will ensure that enforcement authorities appeal only to the Divisional Court and not to the Crown Court. The citizen will continue to have his present recourse to the Crown Court.
I hope that the Committee can accept this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 24, line 25, at end insert ("; or
(c) any order by a magistrates' court as HS mentioned in section 9(6) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I must at the outset apologise for a drafting error in this amendment. In fact Section 9(6) does not refer to a magistrates' court but rather to a justice of the peace. Thus, the amendment should not have mentioned a magistrates' court. Nevertheless, I should like to pursue the principle of the amendment.
The previous clause, Clause 37, makes provision for those who are aggrieved by the decisions of the enforcement authorities to appeal to a magistrates' court, or in Scotland to the sheriff. Clause 38 provides for those who are still not satisfied by the magistrates' decision to appeal further to the Crown Court.
As I read the Bill, it does not seem to make provision for appeals under orders made under Clause 9(6). That, the Committee will recall, deals with the orders made by a justice of the peace either to destroy suspect food or to release it as not being unfit with compensation to the owner. I therefore seek clarification from my noble friend the Minister. Can she tell me if I am wrong and an appeals procedure against such orders is contained in the Bill as it stands? If not, is that an oversight? If so, what is the justification for not allowing appeals on this part of the Bill when appeals are allowed on other parts? I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the error in her amendment. We believe that the provisions of the Bill are necessary because it is often important to have seized food dealt with quickly, especially if there is a large quantity of it. The need for rapid action arises because of the risk that the food could otherwise be used for human consumption. It could also deteriorate substantially if there were delay.
On the question of an appeal, if the owner of the food is aggrieved by the decision of the justice of the peace to condemn it he can apply to a court for judicial review of the decision. I hope that helps my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to issue codes of practice]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 24, line 31, after ("may") insert ("after consulting such persons or bodies as they think it appropriate to consult").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 147 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 148, 149 and 151. Effectively Amendments Nos. 147, 148 and 149 are similar amendments, differing only very slightly in their terminology. Therefore if after I have moved Amendment No. 147 the Minister has any sympathy with any of the three amendments and cares to indicate which one, we shall be very happy to co-operate by formally moving that amendment.
Amendment No. 147 again concerns the question of the width of consultation and openness about decision-making which we consider to be essential if the public are to be confident about the way food law is implemented and administered.
We believe it is important that when issuing codes of practice Ministers are seen to be active in addressing and duly considering the widest possible spectrum of interest. We therefore advocate the inclusion of a statutory obligation on Ministers to consult appropriate persons or bodies when making these codes to ensure that confidence in good manufacturing practice is maintained and bolstered. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: As we have already announced, we shall be setting up an implementation advisory committee to advise on the issue of codes of practice. The committee will involve representatives of the enforcement interests as well as the main central government departments involved.
I know that there are strong views concerning this matter. I wish to be as gracious to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, as he was to me earlier. I am prepared therefore to see formal consultation with interested parties written into the Bill. With the permission of the Committee, I shall consider whether we can apply the formula that we used in Clause 26 to this clause and bring forward an appropriate government amendment at a later stage. I hope that will suit the Committee.
Lord Gallacher: In the light of that assurance, for which I thank the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 24, line 34, at end insert—
("The Minister shall issue a general code of practice as regards the execution and enforcement of the powers in this Act which code shall be available by the date on which this Act comes into force").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 150, perhaps I may take it that the remarks the Minister has just made might apply equally to this amendment. If she will indicate that they do so, I need go no further. Since she does not do so, I shall have to go further.
We have talked about the powers that are contained in this Bill for enforcement authorities inspecting factories, seizing food, issuing prohibition and improvement notices, and so on. That can be done without recourse to a higher authority. Since the enforcement agencies will be spread across the country there will be enormous scope for a variety of interpretations of the new law by the different authorities. We see this already in the way in which trading standards officers look at various matters. We have observed over the past 12 or 18 months in regard to matters such as Sunday trading that a multiple supermarket chain, for instance, is frequently faced with having to comply with different interpretations of exactly the same legislation in its different branches in different areas of the country.
Amendment No. 150 would require the issue by the Minister of a general code of practice for the purpose of providing guidance to enforcement officers on interpretation and implementation. There is an obvious advantage in greater uniformity. It would reduce costs of prosecution for all parties. It would certainly facilitate a better understanding.
In support of my argument, I draw an analogy with the existing manual of practical guidance for inspectors, which was drawn up for use with weights and measures legislation. Although that is a statutory code it provides a good deal of information which may be relevant.
If the Government consider that weights and measures legislation is sufficiently important to issue a statutory code of practice on enforcement, surely something as important as food safety law enforcement is worthy of similar treatment. To be effective such a code would need to be issued to coincide with the date on which the new Food Safety Bill comes into force. If there were a code of practice it ought to support the defender in a prosecution under the new due diligence clause contained in the Bill. That is an eminently suitable vehicle for such a code. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I need no convincing that we should issue codes of practice, in particular to ensure even enforcement of the Bill. That point was made by many interested parties during our review of food law. However, drawing up a comprehensive general code would be an enormous task for central government departments and local authority interests. Many areas of the legislation are in fact already familiar and evenly enforced throughout the country.
I believe that our time and energies would be much better spent producing codes of practice on specific points or areas of concern. These might include areas which are controversial or new, where experience of local authorities can usefully be shared or where enforcement might vary quite widely without central guidance. For example, we have in mind a code of practice indicating the frequency of inspection appropriate for different categories of premises.
Moreover, given the amount of work involved and the fact that it will take time to consult other

849
interests, I do not think that it would be possible to draw up a major comprehensive code before the Bill is enacted. Given the commitment to consult, which we have just accepted, the codes envisaged may also take rather longer to finalise.
I hope that in view of my explanation, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Were it a different time I should be happy to debate the matter further. However, at this time of night I am left with no option but to withdraw my amendment. I do not find my noble friend's answer satisfactory. I am not looking for a comprehensive code; I said a "general code". That is not beyond the wit of man or woman. It is certainly not beyond the wit of officials because there are sufficient codes of practice from which something can be drawn. If it is proper to draw up a code with regard to the number of inspections or visits carried out under various and different categories, it is not beyond the wit of man to draw up a general code to set a general interpretation.
I hope that my noble friend will not take offence, but the reasons for rejecting my amendment could have been based on sounder grounds. I must look carefully at her answer. I can see flaws in it and may well wish to return to the matter at another stage. Sadly, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151:
Page 24, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) Before issuing any code of recommended practice under subsection (I) above, the Ministers or the Minister shall consult with such persons or bodies as appear to them to represent the interests of food authorities, producers of food sources, the food industry, and consumers.").
The noble Lord said: I thank my noble friend for the remarks she made to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I hope that she has a good night's sleep and I am pleased that we have finished in these terms. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power to require returns]:
11 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 25, line 3, at end insert ("and, except insofar as they disclose information about any trade secret, the Minister shall as soon as is practicable arrange for the publication of all such reports and returns.").
The noble Lord said: This is not an amendment of which I am very proud and the more I look at it the less I like it. However, it touches on an important point. It may well be that one would have to come back with a different amendment at some stage.
Clause 40 is about, among other things, sending reports to Brussels on compliance with EC regulations. We believe that that information should be capable of being seen by the public. It is in that
850
context that we want those reports to be made public. I suspect that the amendment does not achieve what we have set out to do. However, I should be interested to know whether the Government have sympathy with the thought that those matters should be in the public domain. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I rather agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, of his own amendment. However, I should like to consider the matter further with a view to a possible government amendment later in our proceedings. How about that?
Lord Tordoff: It is Christmas twice on the same day. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Default powers]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 25, line 10, after ("order") insert ("after holding a local inquiry").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure that this amendment is in the right place in the Bill but Clause 41 as drafted introduces yet another default power. We consider that a local inquiry should be held before the Minister makes an order relieving an authority of its statutory responsibilities.
Under Clause 41(2) the Minister may cause a local inquiry. It may be that the effect of this amendment would be achieved by substituting the word "shall" for "may" in that subsection. This is a probing amendment and I should like to hear the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I assure the Committee that declaring a council to be in default is not a decision which the Government would take lightly. Clause 41 permits Ministers to hold a local inquiry first, and when the facts were in doubt we would normally do so. However, there are occasions when the time and expense of a local inquiry could not be justified. For example, in an emergency, the Government might need to take immediate action to protect public health. Alternatively, a local authority might be quite prepared to admit that it was in default; for example, if it were unable to provide a service because its employees were on strike.
Therefore, I do not believe that a local inquiry should be required in all the circumstances. I hope in view of that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall read carefully what she said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
("Duties of Minister in relation to Food Safety Directorate.
(1) The Minister shall ensure that the Food Safety Directorate which has been established by him is broadly based and accessible to representatives of parties having a legitimate interest in its work, and that it shall report annually to Parliament under the authority of this Act.
(2) In particular the Minister shall appoint an independent chairman to preside at meetings of the Food Safety Directorate.
(3) The Minister shall co-opt as members of the Food Safety Directorate one representative recommended by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and one representative recommended by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers.
(4) The Food Safety Directorate as well as reporting to Ministers shall also report periodically to the Consumer Panel which has been appointed by the Minister; and that Panel should also have the right of access to the Food Safety Directorate on matters which are of importance to the Panel.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the Food Safety Directorate primarily and also, of course, with the consumer panel. Members of the Committee will be aware that details concerning both those creations were given in a Written Answer in both Houses on 2nd November last. I understand that the Food Safety Directorate is now in being and has been operational since 20th November.
On this side of the Committee, we welcome both initiatives by the Government. We do not take the view that they are cosmetic. We believe that, given the fair and slight amendment which we propose in Amendment No. 154, they can become very useful bodies and that there will also be some degree of public interest in them and access to them.
The reason that we seek to change slightly the composition of the Food Safety Directorate is that at present we think it too much an internal body and, therefore, one which is not likely to make an impression on the public. For that reason, it is likely to be hindered rather than helped in its work. The first change which we should like to see is that the chairman of this important body should be an independent person.
It is necessary for me to say that under the present arrangement the chairman is the Minister for Food, who is an Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture. We have nothing against the present Minister for Food. Indeed, on the basis of his performance to date he is likely to be promoted very soon. That is one of the objections we have to giving the chairmanship of a highly technical body to someone who is appointed at the level of Under-Secretary of State.
He may or may not bring with him, to what is for most MPs the first rung on the ladder, the kind of technical expertise which heading this Food Safety Directorate calls for. By the time he has assimilated that expertise he may either be moved up or, as sometimes unfortunately happens in the scheme of things, moved sideways or down, in which case he will not be fully able effectively to chair what we believe is a very important body. On the other hand, if a distinguished independent scientist is invited to chair the body, that in itself would reassure the public and give the Food Safety Directorate a status it badly needs.
We also think that some form of co-option is necessary so that the directorate is not wholly a body of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We suggest that the co-options might comprise one representative recommended by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and one representative recommended by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. At this stage, I shall be happy to accept the amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which would add to the co-opted list one representative recommended by the Royal Society of Chemistry, whom I take it would be representative of the public analysts.
We should therefore have a triangle of experience externally available to this Food Safety Directorate; and again, not merely in its own right, but by way of reassuring the public, that field experience—if one may so describe it—would be valuable to the directorate. It is therefore a useful suggestion that I hope the Government will consider sympathetically.
Finally, we come to the question of reporting. The directorate should report to Ministers and also periodically to the new Consumer Panel which is in the process of being formed so that they are aware at that level of what the Food Safety Directorate is doing and why it is performing a function which will be of interest to the Consumer Panel. The mere reporting to them of their activities will not only be useful to the panel but will give the panel itself a broader experience of food safety matters. That seems to be desirable so that the level of the panel will be raised by reason of its contact with the Food Safety Directorate.
The panel should also have the right of access to the directorate on matters which the panel considers to be important. In other words, the traffic might be two-way rather than one-way. Again, we see that as being mutually beneficial and also being of reassurance to the public. For those reasons, which I have considerably truncated, I consider the amendment to be worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 154, Amendment No. 154A:
Line 11, at end insert ("and one representative recommended by the Royal Society of Chemistry.").
The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has really spoken to my amendment by accepting it on his own behalf. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Following the good example of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I too am truncating. The amendment misunderstands the nature of both the Food Safety Directorate and the Consumer Panel. Both have been set up within the internal structure of MAFF and are ultimately responsible to the Minister. It is for the Minister to report to Parliament on the activities of both bodies and to answer to Parliament for such activities. There is thus no role for either an independent chairman or for an annual report.
The Consumer Panel will consist of ordinary individual consumers not representatives of any particular interests. Environmental health officers

853
are already employed full time at the Department of Health and are thus available to the Government to provide advice. I am content to examine the need for the involvement of trading standards officers, but that can be done quite separately from the passage of this Bill.
As far as the Royal Society of Chemistry is concerned, there are already members within the directorate including the Ministry's Chief Scientist (Fisheries and Food) himself. In view of these somewhat truncated explanations, I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I must present the noble Lord with a contingent withdrawal of my own amendment assuming that he withdraws his.
Lord Gallacher: I am naturally disappointed with the Minister's response because on a question of some considerable importance we are being by-passed in a way which is not worthy of the occasion. We well know the Minister's responsibility in these areas. We are not in any way suggesting that that responsibility to Parliament should be diminished. Neither are we suggesting that the Consumer Panel should be representative of bodies. I made no such suggestion. The choice of the membership of the Consumer Panel is entirely within the discretion of the Minister.
I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been internal and paternal for far too long. This is a very tentative toe in the water. The question to which the Minister should give attention is whether the public at large will be satisfied. From the limited time that I was able to devote to drafting this amendment and from the conversations that I had with the people concerned with this matter, I have been assured that, while they went along with the proposals because they felt I was trying to be constructive, in their considered opinion the ultimate solution lay in an independent food safety directorate.
They reached that conclusion because of past performance and because they were quite certain that MAFF had producer and other employer interests which were so overwhelming that it could not effectively discharge a food safety function in the way in which modern conditions require that it should be discharged. I shall certainly beg leave to withdraw this amendment. I shall return to the question at the Report stage. It may be that the people advising me will say "We told you so. You have asked for a half loaf and got nothing. Now go for the full loaf of bread". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 154, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 154, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Regulations as to charges]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 26, line 27, leave out from ("discretion") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because of the rather confused drafting of Clause 44. As drafted, the clause will enable the Minister to impose maximum charges. We consider that local authorities should be able to make whatever charges are necessary in order to deliver the service they provide as economically and as effectively as possible. That is hinted at in subsection (3) of this clause.
The circumstances of each local authority and the profiles of the individual areas which they administer are all different. A function that can be performed relatively cheaply in one local authority area is of necessity considerably more expensive in another. We consider that local authorities should have the necessary discretion to take such matters into account without the constraint of a statutory maximum charge imposed by a government department that will be many miles from the area in question. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that the power included in the Bill is necessary. Where charges would apply locally we would be unlikely to wish to interfere with local authorities' decisions on charging, but would normally leave it to them to set charges appropriate for their areas. For example, we would expect local authorities to set their own charges for running training courses on food hygiene. However, some charges will apply nationally; for example, charges for issuing certain licences under Clause 19. In such circumstances it would often be appropriate for the Government to set maxima and minima or scales of charge, and I believe the power to do so should remain in the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanation.
Lord Carter: The explanation is helpful. I shall read with care what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Food specially prepared for babies and young children
(" .—(1) Where regulations made under this Act, or regulations which have been or are made under any other Act by any Minister, contain any provision relating to food or food sources which is expressed by reference to food specially prepared for babies or young children or for babies and young children, that reference shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) Any such reference shall be construed as—

(a) referring to food which is of such a kind, or is prepared in such manner, that it would not in normal circumstances be consumed by adults; and

855

(b) including a reference to food which is made up, packaged, advertised or otherwise presented in a manner which indicates or suggests that it is particularly suitable for children for whom a normal adult diet is not yet, or not yet fully, appropriate.').

The noble Lord said: This amendment is a proposed new clause arising out of the drafting of certain statutory instruments of which the easy one to remember is No. 1987 of 1987. The instrument makes it an offence punishable with imprisonment to put colouring matter in food specially prepared for babies or young children. When it came before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I have the honour to serve, the committee's first questions to the Minister were, "What do you mean by young children? Are you talking about toddlers, or primary school children, or something in between?"
This is an important matter because if a Minister is to be given authority to create criminal offences, and if every person is presumed to know the law, it behoves the Minister precisely to define every ingredient of every offence he creates and to leave nothing to chance. If that does not happen, the matter will go to the courts to be interpreted. If the courts are required to interpret without guidance a wide open expression like "young children", one cannot expect them to come to a similar interpretation; and then they will be in trouble.
People will say quite unfairly that the courts are not consistent, that the thing is a lottery and that if one is prosecuted what happens will depend on before which court one comes. That is unfair because all the court will have tried to do is to define a term without guidance from the Minister. The joint committee has tried long enough and hard enough to extract from the Minister a definition of "young children", so far without success. I very much doubt whether we shall get a definition from him, and so the matter has to be looked at from a different angle.
At least we know what was in the Minister's mind when these instruments were drafted. It emerges from several memoranda which he has supplied in answer to questions from the joint committee. It is quite clear that he had in mind two perfectly simple propositions which are enshrined in the proposed new clause. First, he had in mind food not normally eaten by adults; and, secondly, food that is normally eaten by children until they reach a stage in their development when they can graduate from children's food to eating ordinary adult food. That has now been put into the proposed amendment.
If the amendment is accepted and a case arises, the court can look at the new clause, see into the Minister's mind, as it were, and find out what he meant when he spoke of "young children". There will be a much greater chance of consistent interpretation on the part of the courts and all the trouble that has arisen will not occur in future. I hope that the new clause commends itself to the Committee. If the Minister were to have second, third or tenth thoughts and decide that he did not like to do it this way but was prepared, after all, to come forward at Report with a definition of "young children", I have no doubt that that would satisfy the Committee. But we must have something. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I agree with this amendment in principle. I should remind Members of the Committee that I am advised by the representatives of the food processing industry. They think that a provision to clarify the meaning of food for infants and children in the legislation would be helpful. However, I shall not go into such details at this time of night. There are points of drafting which give rise to concern because they are not really clear. Nevertheless, the principle is there.
I have one further point to make. I believe that under the European Community directive in respect of foods for particular nutritional purposes, the Commission intends to draft specific controls covering foods for infants and children. It may well be that this is not the right time to put such provision into the Bill and perhaps it could be dealt with at a later stage when we know what the Commission has suggested. As I said, I support the amendment in principle and I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic in his response.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: On behalf of my noble friend, I must say that I do not consider it appropriate to include in primary legislation a definition of a term which only appears in secondary legislation. However, I accept that the noble Lord's proposed definition is useful and that it could form the basis of an appropriate definition for inclusion in relevant statutory instruments. The noble Lord has kindly sent me a list of the statutory instruments to which he thinks such a definition is relevant, but I do not accept that the Bill is the appropriate place for what he has proposed.
Definitions appear in respect of expressions used in the Bill, but there are no references to children or babies. It is not therefore appropriate to put such a definition into the legislation. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall carefully consider the definition in the context of any statutory instruments and that we shall study the list he has provided to see whether we can amend the statutory instruments at some suitable time along the lines he suggested. I hope, in the light of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his support in principle, and I am also grateful to the Minister for his very sympathetic reply. It seems that something will happen in this connection, although it will not happen this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Regulations and orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 27, line 13, leave out from ("make") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("different provision in relation to different cases or classes of case (including different provision for different areas or different classes of business)").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Statutory instruments]:
[Amendments Nos. 158 to 160 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert ("or to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In deciding which procedure is to be followed Ministers shall take account of the view of the consumer panel appointed by the Minister.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I think that it will generally be agreed that the Bill is in a sense a skeletal Bill, and that much of its effects will only really be felt when regulations under it are made. The proposal in the Bill to limit the parliamentary endorsement to the annulment procedure is a matter which has been concerning us ever since we first read it. On the other hand, it would be virtually impossible for the Committee to write into the Bill at every point where orders are likely to be made a specific provision as to whether the procedure for approving such orders should be affirmitive or whether it should be dealt with by way of annulment.
We have come up with the idea in the amendment, which I have no doubt will be well and truly turned down by the Government, that to reassure Parliament and to give consideration to the procedure to be followed as and when the occasion arises the Minister shall take account of the views of the consumer panels which he has appointed. While it may be a constitutional novelty, it will again provide the consumer panel with a useful role. To feel that it had been consulted as to whether the affirmative or the annulment procedure was to be adopted in a particular instance would be beneficial and would perhaps save us a great deal of blood, sweat and tears in attempting to write into the Bill specific provisions for the procedures to be followed.
In the event that that proposal is not acceptable to the Government, we are of the view that the principle laid down in Amendment No. 162, requiring the affirmative procedure for irradiation, should be adopted, and if that is not tested tonight we are willing to put our names to it and see it tested in Report. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The amendment is totally inappropriate for the Bill and I hope that my noble friend will resist it.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: On the general point, as the Committee will be aware the affirmative procedure places heavy demands on the time of this place and of another place, and is by convention reserved for powers substantially affecting provisions of Acts of Parliament and powers to increase taxation or other financial burdens or other especially important powers such as those creating new varieties of serious criminal offences. I do not believe that any of the order-making and regulation-making powers in the Bill fall into any of those categories.
In any event, it would be inappropriate for the new consumer panel to advise on matters of parliamentary procedure, as has been suggested by the noble Lord. The panel is a non-statutory body
858
designed to fill an important advisory role and keep Ministers in touch with the views of ordinary consumers.
In practice, we should not wish to use those powers without taking the views of outside interests, including consumers, into account wherever possible. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not pass the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 162:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) Any regulations made under section 16(1)(c) of this Act authorising the irradiation of food shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, I do not wish to move the amendment. We shall return to it at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Form and authentication of documents]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("enforcement") and insert ("food").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164, 165, 166, 171, 172, 174, 175 and 175A, B and C.
I trust that the Committee will be able to accept the amendments, which are of a technical nature or merely correct printing errors. Amendment No. 163A amends Clause 49. The subsection deals with food authorities rather than enforcement authorities. The amendment is needed for consistency. I hope that the Committee will accept it as such.
Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 ensure that the lists of definitions in Clause 53 are in alphabetical order. Amendment No. 166 follows earlier amendments grouped with Amendment No. 41 enabling regulations or orders to refer to classes of food. Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 simply make printing corrections. Finally, Amendments Nos. 174, 175, 175A, 175B and 175C are to ensure that table A in Schedule 4 correctly records the new provisions in the Bill which mirror regulation-making powers in the 1984 Act. I hope that Members of the Committee will have no difficulty in accepting these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Contamination of food: emergency orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 163B and 163C:
Page 29, line 4, leave out from ("there") to ("likely") in line 5 and insert ("exist or may exist circumstances which are").

859
Page 29, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert—
("(c) the substitution for subsection (5) of that section of the following subsection—
"(5) An emergency order shall refer to the circumstances or suspected circumstances in consequence of which in the opinion of the designating authority making it food such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above is, or may be, or may become, unsuitable for human consumption; and in this Act 'designated circumstances' means the circumstances or suspected circumstances to which an emergency order refers in pursuance of this subsection";

(d) in section 2(3) (powers when emergency order has been made), the substitution for the words "a designated incident" of the words "designated circumstances";

(e) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 (powers of officers), the substitution for the words "an escape of substances" of the words "such circumstances as are mentioned in section (1) above"; and

(I) in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection, the substitution for the words "the designated incident" of the words "the designated circumstances".").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 163B and 163C en bloc.
Lord Gallacher: Before agreeing to the adoption of Amendments Nos. 163B and 163C en bloc, I should like a word from the Minister about the effect of the amendments on the Bill. I have been looking at exactly what they say and I shall look at them again when they are reprinted. Would the Minister care to tell us briefly why the necessity for Amendment No. 163C has arisen and whether it in any way weakens the provisions regarding emergency orders as the Bill now provides for these?
Baroness Trumpington: I apologise to the Members of the Committee for introducing these substantive amendments so late in the day, but I consider it proper to do so now rather than at Report stage.
The new proposal arises as a result of recent experience of lead contamination. The effect of these amendments is to extend the powers in Section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. As amended, the powers will enable Ministers to take emergency action where there are or may be circumstances which are likely to give rise to a hazard to human health through human consumption of food. The 1985 Act, as currently framed, only enables Ministers to act where there has been an escape or release of substances. The new provision replaces this with the concept that there are circumstances which put people at risk if they eat particular foods. This is because it has become clear to the Government that risks have arisen from naturally occurring environmental sources—for example, from lead in the soil ending up in the cows' milk or meat. This may be a small gap but it is certainly a significant one.
I trust that Members of the Committee will recognise the merits of these amendments. Clearly Ministers must be able to take immediate action to protect consumers and the national food supply when emergencies have arisen.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [General interpretation]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 166 have already been spoken to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 166:
Page 30, transpose line 9 to after line 13.
Page 31, transpose line 8 to after line 9.
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("class or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak briefly on Clause 53 in order to point out to the Minister that the clause has definitions of various terms. Will she consider, before we come to the next stage of the Bill, whether or not there should be a definition of the word "labelling"? I know that she said that it would not be necessary because the definition was in the food labelling regulations of 1984. However, would it not be better to define what labelling means in the Bill rather than leave it to subordinate legislation? There are some other minor definitions such as that of advertisement. I leave it to the Minister to consider that point.
Baroness Trumpington: Clause 53 provides a very useful table of definitions of certain expressions used in the Bill. The clause re-enacts many of the definitions found in Section 132(1) of the Food Act 1984 and Section 58 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956. There are, however, some additions and amendments which I hope are largely self-explanatory.
I recognise the problem of my noble friend as regards the definition of labelling. However, I thought I had described the problems involved with the matter of labelling when I spoke on earlier clauses. I would be loath to see a definition on labelling at this stage of the Bill. No doubt when the matter of labelling has been harmonised across the EC we could include a definition, but until then I do not feel we can do so. I ask the Committee to agree that Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions of regulations under Section 16(1)]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 34, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Schedule 1, paragraph 4(a), which is written in a very convoluted fashion, seems to identify persons with appropriate qualifications who will give written opinions with respect to processing or treatment in the preparation of food. I wondered how these persons compared with or were part of the various advisory committees which the Minister already has, such as the Food Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Committee on Medical

861
Aspects of Food Policy, the Committee on Microbiological Aspects of Food Safety, and indeed the new consumer panel of the food safety directive.
I suppose some consumers have the qualifications prescribed by the regulations and they may have a few experts among them. However, does this provision exist for describing the members of that body or does it refer to another set of people who will give written opinions? If that is not the case, is there any provision in the Bill for the kind of advice on the subject matter of food safety which the organisations that I have described inevitably give to the Minister at the present time? Clarification on that point would be helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that to accept this amendment would seriously weaken the proposed powers in the Bill to ensure that processes are safe. The provision we are discussing will enable us to ensure that the food producer has identified the critical control points and parameters, where necessary obtaining expert advice. That will ensure his product is safe and that he is carrying out his process accordingly.
Without this provision there may be no indication that a process is unsafe until it has resulted in an outbreak of food poisoning or other food-borne illness. Clearly in the light of the speed of technological change and the increasingly complex nature of food processing the powers contained in the paragraph under discussion are essential. We cannot depend on food enforcement authorities to provide absolute assurance on food safety in every case. That is the duty of the food producers.
The question of the qualifications of people serving on advisory committees is a quite separate provision. We intend to allow experts to give views on the safety of processes, not general views. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: With the greatest possible respect, my question was not answered. I tried to help by giving advance notice of what I intended in the amendment but that does not appear to have filtered through the system. I shall have to return to the charge, dealing with the matter differently so that it is easier for everybody to understand. I am still puzzled as to who the people mentioned in paragraph 4(a) are and how they relate to the organisations to which I referred. It seems to me that the Minister will receive a great many written opinions from different sources and that paragraph 4(a) is not necessary in its present form. Something similar is necessary, but the situation is untidy and I am not at all happy with it. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
Page 34, line 45, leave out ("or any class of food").
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("or any class of food")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I may speak briefly on the schedule. I should like to ask my noble friend to give some indication, either in a letter or at Report stage, of what the Government have in mind with regard to training, which is mentioned in paragraph 5(3) of the schedule.
I have in mind the position of the person who works on a casual basis in a village shop or in my pick-your-own business. Is she or he to have government or local government certificates or to take government or local government courses? Is her or his training to be, as it is now, from the employer? I do not for one minute expect my noble friend to answer now because it is quite a deep question. However, perhaps she could write to me between now and Report or make a statement on Report. I believe that it is important.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps before my noble friend answers I may intervene. I had intended to raise a similar point in relation to paragraph 5(3) because training is uppermost in our minds in a number of areas. There is no indication of whether the training is to be industry led, whether the industry is to set the standards or curricula, or whether there is to be a government-inspired programme.
I am sorry that we do not have the opportunity to discuss the matter at greater length. We have been progressing like a runaway train since Amendment No. 81. However, I believe that before the Bill passes into law it is incumbent upon the Government to give some indication as to their thinking. It will be too late for Parliament, and particularly for this Chamber, to deal with the matter when it comes under regulations.
There may well be areas to which the industry and individual employers will have to give attention now. For example, what are we to do about the training of the sandwich bar operator? What are we to do about the training of the street vendor? Such matters are crucial to the efficacy of the entire Bill. Without adequate training in hygiene—elementary or more complex—all that we have spent two days debating can go straight out of the window.
I echo my noble friend Lord Stanley's request that at some stage, in some form or another, at least some indication should be given as to the way the Government are thinking. I hope that in giving such an indication any response may not just confine itself to, "Well, we have consultation going on, and all will emerge". It is essential that Parliament should know, either in this House or in another place, exactly what the Government are hoping to achieve under this schedule.
Lord Mottistone: The complete answer is to re-create the distributive industry training board, of which I had the pleasure and privilege to be the director in the years before 1975 when it was ruined.
Baroness Hooper: We are of course most grateful for the helpful suggestions that have been made in this respect. The Committee will have seen that Clause 16 gives Ministers fairly broad powers to make regulations on aspects of food safety and consumer protection. Schedule 1 simply spells out some of the things that may be included in the regulations. Many of these are contained in existing legislation but some are new.
The new provisions include, for example, powers to require processes to be licensed, and indeed to require the training of food handlers. In this I fully agree with my noble friend that training is of considerable importance. Because we believe that, we published a consultation paper about training last December. We would of course welcome comments on it and on any other points from my noble friends and any other source.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 39, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) In that Schedule, paragraph 40 shall cease to have effect and after paragraph 36 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Food
36A. Tribunals constituted in accordance with regulations under Part II of the Food Safety Act 1990 being tribunals appoined for Scotland." ").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170 and discuss with it Amendment No. 181. There are straightforward, technical points. The first, in Schedule 3, will bring within the ambit of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals such Scottish tribunals constituted under regulations made under the Bill.
The second amendment removes paragraph 40 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 which will no longer apply with the repeal, under this Bill, of the Milk (Special Designations) Act 1949, as proposed in Schedule 5. This amendment achieves for Scotland what paragraph 14 of Schedule 3 to the Bill does for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 171 and 172:
Page 40, line 20, leave out("16(2)")and insert ("16(3)").
Page 42, line 8, leave out ("Environment and") and insert ("and Environment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 172A:
Page 42, line 9, after ("(interpretation)") insert—

("(a) in the definition of "designated incident", for the words "designated incident" there shall be substituted the words "designated circumstances";

(b) the definition of "escape" shall cease to have effect; and

(c)").

The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment following upon Amendments 163B and 163C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 43, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("or section 58 of the 1956 Act").
The noble Earl said: Schedule 4 contains six technical amendments relating to Scotland. All are concerned either with saving or transitional provisions necessary to ensure the smooth operation of food law between the repeal of existing legislation and the introduction of new regulations or orders under the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 176 to 180 are similar in nature in that they provide for any food and milk orders to continue to have effect until new regulations take their place. In this respect also a definition of existing order is provided. Amendment No. 173 simply saves a definition of home-going ships until, as with the others, regulations are introduced specific to certain ships on which food is sold. I should add that similar arrangements for England and Wales have been made in all these cases.
I hope that that brief explanation will allow the Committee to agree to these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 175C:
Page 44, line 11, column 2, after ("16(1)(b)") insert ("(c)").
Page 44, line 13, column 2, leave out ("(d) and (f) and (2)") and insert ("(c), (d) and (f), (2) and (3)").
Page 44, line 17, at end insert—
("section 73(2) (qualification of officers) section 5(6)").
Page 44, line 18, at end insert—
("section 79(5) (form of certificate) section 49").
Page 44, line 35, at end insert—
("section 29(3) (form of certificate) section 49").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendments Nos. 174 to 175C have all been spoken to with Amendment No. 163A. The Question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 180:
Page 44, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
Page 45, line 2, leave out ("orders") and insert ("existing order").
Page 45, line 4, leave out ("repeal of that section, as if they") and insert ("relevant repeal, as if it").
Page 45, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) Any existing order made under section 3 of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act 1922 (sale of milk under special designations) shall have effect, after the commencement of the relevant repeal, as if it were regulations made under section 18(2) of this Act.

865
(3) In this paragraph "existing order" means any order made under a provision repealed by this Act which is in force immediately before the coming into force of that repeal; and references to the commencement of the relevant repeal shall be construed accordingly.").
Page 45, line 19, after second ("Act") insert ("or section I of the Control of Food Premises (Scotland) Act 1977").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: These amendments have been spoken to with Amendment No. 173. The Question is that Amendments Nos. 176 to 180 be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 46,line 9,column 3,leave out ("paragraph 15") and insert ("paragraphs 15 and 40").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 170.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Isle of Wight Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendment agreed to with an amendment; the Commons amendment to the Lords amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.