To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's policy on dispersing staff to the regions; and what proportion of his staff now work outside London.

The Government's policy is that Civil Service work should be located where it can be done most cost-effectively and provide the best service to the public, taking account also of the Government's urban and regional policies.

The Department has some 12.670 staff in post, of whom just over half work outside central London. A further 650 Patents Office posts will move to Newport by 1991, and the location of a number of other units is under review.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is the willingness to move outside the south-west evenly distributed across the Civil Service grades or have middle-aged middle management demonstrated greater reluctance to move? If so, what are the implications of that?

The implications of any differences, whether described by grades or individuals, are that they must be taken into account when considering both whether a move should take place and the arrangements under which it should do so.

Has the Minister given any consideration to relocating any of the staff in his Department to Norfolk house in my constituency, which has a long-term lease held by the Property Services Agency at a cost of £166,000 per annum, has lain vacant for a considerable number of years and could accommodate approximately 400 staff?

As I indicated, there are a number of reviews of possible further relocations taking place. Clearly, we shall bear in mind the availability of office accommodation and the supply of labour in particular locations. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

Of the 6,000 or so members of my right hon. Friend the Minister's staff based in central London, how many were able to turn up for work today? Does he agree that the experiences of millions of people in this capital today underline the absolute necessity of dispersing more Whitehall staff to the regions? In that context, will he look at the claims of Cornwall, particularly in this age of modern information technology?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact breakdown that he seeks, but a number of my staff are absent. I also take note, as I hope will the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, of what my hon. Friend said about the disruption needlessly caused to so many thousands of people by today's events. As always, I shall be mindful of Cornwall's needs.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to encourage new industries to come to Tameside.

I am tempted to reply, "lots". The north-west is booming economically as a direct result of Her Majesty's Government's policies, and Tameside is no exception. The demand from domestic and foreign companies to invest in the north-west is a true measure of the faith that they have in the British economy.

I am sure that the Minister's words will not encourage the large numbers of my constituents who have been out of work for 12 months or more. They particularly resent the way in which the Government invest so many resources in the south-east and, so far as they can see, very few in Tameside. Will the Minister particuarly impress on his Government colleagues the need to complete the motorway around the east side of Manchester and to develop a freight terminal in the Tameside, east side, of Manchester to take full advantage of the Channel tunnel when it is operational, and so as to be prepared for harmonisation in 1992?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my constituency is further north than his. My hon. Friends who represent northern and north-west constituencies and I find a totally different picture from that painted by the hon. Gentleman. The north-west is doing extremely well at the moment, and long may it continue to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the points that he raised about infrastructure are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I will draw their attention to the points that he makes.

Is not the validity of my hon. Friend's answer borne out when one considers the investment made by companies such as British Aerospace, Fox's Biscuits, Leyland Daf and many others in the Preston area and the capital expansion and employment programmes that they are following?

As usual, my hon. Friend is spot on. He will know, as I do, that the local paper in Preston pointed to how the local Labour council had problems because business was booming to such an extent that there was congestion and more space was needed for offices, but that all in all they were problems of success—something that the council recognised even if Labour Members of Parliament do not.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Economic Community members Britain's trade is in deficit.

In the 12 months to April the United Kingdom was in deficit on visible trade with Belgium and Luxembourg, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.

The length of that list is impressive. The Minister scarcely missed out any EC country. How can the Government claim that we have the strongest economy in Europe when we have a trade deficit with virtually every other Community country?

The question of with which countries we have a deficit is wholly irrelevant. The fact is that three-quarters of the imports into this country are either semi-manufactured capital goods or intermediate goods. They reflect not just increased consumer demand, which is itself an example of the prosperity which pervades this country, but are a consequence of the high investment boom that has been going on. The hon. Gentleman should welcome those signs of strength.

Is it not nonsense to continue producing figures of deficits with Community countries when we are supposed to become one major trading bloc after 1992? What use are such figures to anybody in the Community, and should we not dispose of them in 1992?

I find no difficulty in the continued existence of the figures, but many people like figures for their own sake. When we place on businesses the requirement to fill in extremely detailed forms, we have to consider the use for which such information is gathered. As my hon. Friend will know, discussions are going on within Europe about the extent of detail that should be collected after 1992. We take the view that, while it may be right that there should be broad measures of trade between Community members, an excessive amount of detail is unnecessary.

Does the Minister realise that the large part of that deficit which is in textiles—23 per cent.—is worrying people who work in the industry, and that the Government are making things far worse by their policy of high interest rates? People in my constituency are not happy when the Minister trivialises a serious situation.

I have not trivialised it, but a percentage point on interest rates places only a third of the cost on industry of an extra percentage point on earnings. Those industries which are seeking and working extremely hard to increase their exports are not helped by the prospect of a dock strike, nor by the transport strikes today.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no real danger of this country being forced to live on Brussels sprouts and that the advent of the single market in 1992 presents British industry and services with tremendous opportunities?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why we have mounted a campaign to alert British businesses to the opportunities. However, we have also not sought to hide from British businesses the dangers that may be involved, and the dangers which flow from enhanced competition. The message has been that, for a business to succeed, it must be more competitive, which means containing its costs as best it can and developing its market, services and products to provide what the customer wants.

How does the Minister explain what he would no doubt regard as the wholly irrelevant increase in our trade deficit with EC countries from £5·4 billion in 1979 to £18 billion in 1989, and what new steps does he intend to take to continue his economic miracle in Britain's trade with European countries?

The hon. Gentleman missed out of his potted economic history all the years between those two dates when Britain was in substantial surplus. I do not recall him or his colleagues popping up at every Question Time in those years saying what an economic success that was.

There is some debate about joining the European monetary system, I believe. If we were in it, as I understand it, either sterling would be higher or interest rates would be lower, which would mean that either more money would be spent or foreign goods would be cheaper. What would that do to the trade deficit?

My hon. Friend raises a most interesting question which, as he will realise, falls outside my responsibilities. At this stage of the year it may be unwise for me to venture into that area.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where Sir Brian Hayes's personal records of the departmental events of January 1986 will be stored on his retirement.

I understand that Sir Brian Hayes made no personal record of these events.

Are the permanent secretary and the Chancellor still interested in integrity in British public life in the highest echelons of the DTI? As Colette Bowe and John Mogg have both put their accounts of events in bank vaults, would it not be wise and in the interests of posterity for Sir Brian Hayes to make a record and explain why he advised Leon Brittan not to leave the DTI? Did he know that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham had approved, quite improperly, the disclosure of the Law Officer's letter? Will Sir Brian reveal his personal view of the Prime Minister's behaviour during the course of those events?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take the fact that I shall not comment on every part of his question as in any way endorsing the assumptions on which it was based. I can only say, as I have said before, that I have nothing to add to the very full account given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister some three years ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a long tradition of this House that right hon. and hon. Members do not criticise civil servants, who serve all shades of Government so loyally? In view of the monocular mentality of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does my right hon. Friend agree that it would he no bad thing if the hon. Gentleman were placed in storage long before retirement?

I note what my hon. Friend suggests, and no doubt the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has also done so.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the current figures for ERDF grant in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1988–89.

In the financial year 1988–89, ERDF commitments to Yorkshire and Humberside were valued at £26 million.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Scunthorpe borough council on creating so many jobs in the borough—more, in fact, than its neighbouring Conservative-controlled authority, even though it has exactly the same access to exactly the same grants? Is the Minister aware of the difficulty facing Yorkshire and Humberside, including Scunthorpe, because of the way in which the integration development operations programme has overrun its plans? Has Commissioner Milian said what help he will give through transitional assistance for current schemes in both Scunthorpe and Bradford borough councils?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he and two of his colleagues came to discuss this matter. We managed to resolve the misunderstanding that occurred—to his satisfaction, I hope, and to that of his hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). To date, I have no information to give him on what Commissioner Milian is doing, although we are ensuring that the commitment that I honoured in my letter to his hon. Friend will be maintained. I do not wish to be drawn on the comparison between one borough council and another, except to say that I am delighted if any borough is able to create more jobs. After all, whether boroughs are controlled by the Labour party or any other party, it is the Conservative Government's overall economic policy which has provided the environment in which those jobs have been created.

Although as a Yorkshire Member I welcome the money coming into Yorkshire from the European Community, may I point out that we need to keep the whole matter in perspective? Are not Yorkshire companies, and British companies generally, making substantial contributions through the tax system to the European Community and helping to fund the £2 billion net contribution that Britain makes each year to the European Community? As we get only £26 million back through regional funds, does not that pale into insignificance compared with the net contribution that we have to make?

My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. As a Lancashire Member, I would not wish to be drawn on the subject of the money being given to Yorkshire. In the context of friendly rivalry, I merely hope that Lancashire is doing as well if not better than Yorkshire and Humberside.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the change in competitiveness of British industry in the last 10 years.

Competitiveness involves numerous factors, including quality, reliability, assurance of delivery and after-sales service. In relation to price competitiveness alone, unit labour costs in United Kingdom manufacturing compared with those in other industrial countries, allowing for the effects of exchange rate movements, are thought to have been on average the same in 1988 as in 1979.

To translate that into real terms, 51,000 jobs were lost on Teesside alone between 1979 and 1981 and although we welcome British Steel's £600 million profit, we should not forget that it was achieved at the cost of the loss of 130,000 jobs, many of them on Teesside. Will the Minister confirm that we have lost about 9 per cent of world trade since 1979, a loss which has been greater than that of our industrial competitors? Does the Minister think that that reflects a supply side economic failure or success?

On the specific point raised, the indications are that in recent years the decline in Britain's share of trade has stopped, and may even have been reversed after many years—indeed, decades—in which there was a persistent tendency to decline. With regard to the north-east, there is no doubt that there have been substantial changes in the pattern of employment over the period in question, but they reflect an increase in the competitiveness of the relevant industries, including steel, which means that there are now secure jobs whereas previously there were insecure jobs.

Is it not a fact that Britain has nothing to fear while the spirit that is obvious today abounds in the many people who have come into London and other industrial cities in the face of the most extraordinary difficulties? An example is the young lady I saw in a baker's in Strutton Ground today, near my London accommodation, who had come into work at 5 am. Despite having had a six-hour journey to reach home last Friday, she is back again today.

I have not had the opportunity to make that young lady's acquaintance, but I am happy to pay tribute to her efforts and to those of many others who have overcome needless industrial disruption to get to work today.

On the subject of security in the steel industry, the steel workers of Bellshill will be grateful to the Minister for his assurance that their jobs in the Clydesdale Tube Works are guaranteed. Does the Minister agree that competitiveness is often a function of investment at plant level and that no matter what efforts are made by the work force, in the absence of that investment and technological capital equipment the work force often comes off worst? Is the Minister aware that in the Clydesdale Tube Works at Bellshill over the past two years the workers have increased quality, delivery times and productivity beyond all recognition, but we understand that there is still a threat over their heads due to lack of investment in the mills? How does the Minister intend to ensure that his assurance today that steel jobs are secure will be maintained now that he has privatised the steel industry so that it is outwith our control?

Eight or nine years ago the steel industry gained a mention in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the largest corporate loss ever made. It has now been privatised, is making substantial profits and has far greater capacity to invest than would have been the case if the previous policy had been allowed to continue.

Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate about the effect on the competitiveness of British industry if we had a policy of increasing company and personal taxation, imposing import controls, increasing regulation and bureaucracy, and subsidising inefficient industries—all policies that have been espoused by Opposition Members during the past few years?

The result would have been the same dismal performance that we saw between 1974 and 1979, when Britain's international competitiveness declined by about 25 per cent.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have so far been received for consultancy projects under the enterprise initiative.

More than 28,000 applications for assisted consultancy projects have been received since the launch of the scheme in January 1988. Building on this success, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced improvements to make it easier for smaller firms to obtain the advice they need to improve their performance, and to extend the role of enterprise counsellors to cover single market issues.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is encouraging to see the emphasis being placed on marketing in these consultancy projects, quality seems to be falling back to second in line although it is impossible to sell and market things if they are not of sufficient quality? With regard to the trade deficit and competitiveness, would it not be helpful to put extra emphasis on the importance of quality so as to ensure that we deal with the real reason for the trade deficit, which is that some countries are producing higher quality goods than we are?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the improvements that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday was greater emphasis on total quality management in one of the consultancy initiatives.

Will the Minister tell us how much the television advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative has cost? Will he do the arithmetic and tell us how much each successful application has cost as a proportion of total television advertising costs?

There would be no point in an initiative of this sort if it were not brought extensively to the attention of those at whom it is aimed. The response has been substantial. Our surveys have shown that many of the firms which have acknowledged the benefits that they have gained from the consultancy initiative would not otherwise have sought that advice and help, which is improving the competitiveness and quality of British industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my area several small firms have taken advantage of the scheme and have benefited from the Government-aided consultancy? Does he agree that every effort should be made to increase the take-up among small firms because many are sceptical and some are frightened of consultants? Does he further agree that one way of doing that would be to have a register of small firms which have used the scheme satisfactorily and which would be available to act as referees for other small firms sceptical about the scheme?

I note and will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are aiming the scheme at small firms. It is satisfactory that of the 28,000 applications to which I have referred, about 90 per cent. have been from firms employing fewer than 100 people. One of the new measures announced in the past two or three days is designed to make the scheme even more user-friendly to small firms.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer a direct question and tell us the cost of that television advertising and the cost per application take-up?

I have already made that clear to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). The point about such a scheme is that because of the advantages that it entails we should bring it to the attention of those at whom it is aimed, and that has been achieved.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Government are taking to ensure that the European Economic Community does not erect protectionist trade barriers.

The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that our experience of the economic benefits of free markets and deregulation is reflected in Community policy. The Community is also working in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations to achieve a further substantial liberalisation of international trade.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's opposition to protectionist trade runs to opposing vigorously any moves to protectionism emanating from within the Commission, despite recent improvements within the Commission? Can he also confirm that the best way to tackle competition from places like Japan and Korea is to look to our own problems, particularly in education and our attitude to industry, rather than imposing quotas, voluntary restraint agreements and spurious anti-dumping duties, which only push up prices to consumers and compound the inefficiencies of European industry?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that the attitude of the European Commission on these matters is increasingly liberal. Certainly, the new Commission takes the view that free trade is very good and that we should work hard to pursue it. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important to open trade in other markets outside the Community. I believe that those markets are opening. It is now up to British businesses to seek to exploit those markets and to get into them and sell hard.

Does the Minister agree that after 1992 it will be essential for the survival of the clothing and textile industry that there is a burden-sharing agreement between all 12 member states on the import of textiles and clothing into the Common Market? Does the Minister further agree that the easiest market to penetrate is the United Kingdom market, with six main suppliers supplying every major town and city throughout the United Kingdom? That is not the position in any other member state. Therefore, on the basis of equality, a burden-sharing arrangement should be made. It is vital for the continued success of the British textile industry in areas like mine in Bradford.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the multi-fibre arrangement was never intended to be more than a temporary measure to protect industry during a period of disruption and major changes worldwide in the industry. He will know that it is the intention of the Community in the GATT negotiations to consider ways of returning to ordinary trading. He knows also that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is well seized of the point that he raised about burden sharing within the Community and is working hard at it. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will want to recognise that the effect of protectionism in textiles—for that is what it is—is to increase the cost of clothing, which affects worst the poorest in society, and to inhibit the industrialisation of developing countries.

If we are so opposed to protectionist trade barriers in Europe, can my hon. Friend kindly explain our humiliating acrobatics over the recent EC broadcasting directive? How did it come about that we supported the directive requiring all media companies in this country to take more than 50 per cent. of their programming from EC sources? Having supported that protectionist measure at 2 o'clock in the morning in the House, how did it come about, since we were arguing that it is more communitaire to support the EC party line, that when we got to Brussels the following day, we were out-voted by our communitaire partners and ended up with egg all over our faces?

I have to tell my hon. Friend that he has got it wrong. We were actually extremely successful in achieving a common position on the broadcasting directive which was very much more liberal than that which was proposed by many of our partners in the Community.

Nonsense.

If my hon. Friend will contain his impatience for a little while, I will tell him that we have by no means lost the agreement. It is of great regret to us, having discussed it in good faith, that two countries in the Community, which pretend perhaps a greater adherence to European idealism than we do, went back on the agreement that they had already reached. But that does not mean that the broadcasting directive will be renegotiated. There is still a numerical majority for the common position that was reached, and I have no doubt that the qualified majority will be reasserted.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new businesses have been established in Northumberland in the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

I am tempted to reply yet again, "lots".

In the three years 1985 to 1987, the estimated number of new registrations for value added tax in Northumberland was 1,946. The net increase in the VAT-registered businesses in the period was 211—in fact, a 3 per cent. rise.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Does he agree that that is further proof of the Government's economic success in laying permanent foundations for the revival of the north-east, especially for small businesses and for self-employment? That success is now being broadcast far and wide throughout the region by all the media—Tyne-Tees Television, the Evening Chronicle, The Journal and the BBC. We are grateful to the Government for their policies.

My hon. Friend is well known for his championing of the case which is represented in his constituency. He has summed up succinctly the success story that is Northumberland.

What practical support is the Minister prepared to give to ensure that European aid goes to businesses in areas of Northumberland to ensure that they benefit after 1992 from more direct communications and other investment projects that will help them to prosper?

I paid a visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I saw just how much is required to be done as well as what is being done to benefit his part of the world. He will continue to put his case and we will seek to reflect his concern within European circles. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the successes of Government policy are being shown even in his part of the world.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the 52 recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on information technology have been accepted by his Department.

The Government have broadly accepted 28 of the 52 recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee's report on IT.

Is not the Government's record a disgrace, bearing in mind that we still have a very high level of unemployment in this country, which is especially true of Leith where more than 20 per cent. of my constituents cannot get a real job? Can the Minister explain that?

I confess that the direct connection between employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the Trade and Industry Committee's report on IT escapes me for the moment.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety about computer hacking in relation to information technology? Is he also aware that, in spite of pressure from various sources about the need for legislation on this subject, it is the view of the police that they are capable of dealing with computer fraud under existing legislation?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is obviously aware that there has been a lot of discussion on the subject and much concern has been expressed. The Government, however, are taking a measured view of the problem. They are examining the evidence and they are assessing how far the existing provisions are adequate to meet the problem or how far new measures may be required. I am confident that a decision will be reached shortly, so that we can give the necessary assurances on this important matter. No one will be rushed into a decision. We want to get it right rather than arrive too soon at what may be the wrong decision.

When looking into the question of information technology, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry considered the deficit in electronic goods. I am sure that the Minister is aware that last year the trade deficit in electronics was £3·9 billion, which is an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year, and accounts for almost one third of the total trade deficit. In the past four years alone, the deficit in electronic goods—which includes computers, telecommunications and audio equipment—has risen by a staggering 40 per cent. The Minister will be further aware that that pathetic record was remarked upon extensively by the Select Committee. The Government are now involved in negotiating a detailed sector plan with the brewing industry. Is it not time that they got around the table with the IT industry to work out how Britain can begin to remedy that £4 billion trade gap in one of our most important industries?

The hon. Gentleman exhibits the delight that the Opposition have in producing what they believe is bad news on every possible occasion. But what the hon. Gentleman has not told the House is that—it is important to understand this—every major OECD country, with the exception only of Japan, has an IT trade deficit. He has also not told the House that—this is another important figure—the United Kingdom has a trade surplus with the rest of the EC in IT products; something that the Opposition were trying to portray as an adverse picture not a few moments ago. Rather than fall into the trap that the hon. Gentleman is trying to set for the House in asking whether we shall take action to remedy one particular item that he regards as being bad news, we should acknowledge the excellent work that has been done in the IT industry, acknowledge a success story when we see one and not be driven off course by the sort of selective bad news offered up by the Opposition on these occasions.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on the rate of growth of British exports.

Since 1979, visible exports have increased in volume—that is in real terms—by 30 per cent., and invisible exports by about 40 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join us in congratulating all those businesses that have worked hard to achieve that major success story.

Is the Minister aware that the Budget prediction that trade will be in balance by 1992 depends upon an annual export growth of 7 per cent. and an import growth 4 per cent. lower than that? By how far are we currently failing to achieve that and has the prediction of the balance of trade by 1992 been revised?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to be told that during the three months ending in April 1989, non-oil exports have risen by 7·5 per cent. compared with the equivalent three months a year ago, and that represents the sort of growth in exports about which the hon. Gentleman will be relieved and delighted to hear.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's work in establishing and promoting the 1992 programme in Europe has been of great benefit to our exporting companies, but is he also aware of the considerable confusion that is caused to British industry by the rather garbled and confused message that appears to have emanated from the Government on European policy since then? Will my hon. Friend clarify to the House what steps the Government intend to take to stabilise the exchange control mechanism and when they will all be singing one song?

I am sure that if my hon. Friend has been listening carefully he will have heard not only one song but a very good song. We are fully engaged in the EC, we have led in many respects and we have achieved a great many successes. In continuing to improve our exports, nothing can substitute for the ability of firms to produce the goods and services that their customers want, but we have done a great deal in providing the sort of help that is needed to do that.

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), which did not fully comply with the EEC brown nose directive, unlike the question from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), in what year does the Minister expect our trade to be in balance and to be able to make good the accumulated trade deficit of the past three or four years?

I see no reason to divert from the most recent forecast of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

While welcoming the increase in the volume of our exports, may I ask what effect a reduction in soft loans will have on their rate of growth, and do any of our foreign competitors intend either to increase or to decrease their support in that respect?

Clearly, changes in the amount and extent of soft loans available do have an effect. However, that matter is not one with which I deal directly, but no doubt my hon. Friend will receive at some stage a satisfactory reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I make no apology for repeating that nothing can substitute for the ability of firms to compete in the market place.

What does the Minister have to say about the Confederation of British Industry survey published this week, which shows that our export prospects are the worst for two and half years? Is not that directly attributable to the Minister's right hon. Friend the one-club Chancellor, whose policies are crippling British exports?

The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. As I said in an earlier answer to one of his hon. Friends, the effect of interest rates on business is considerably less than the effect of unjustified increases in earnings. As to the competitiveness of exchange rates, the hon. Gentleman will recollect that Japan increased exports considerably even when the value of the yen doubled. I say again that it is the ability of businesses to win markets that matters, not what the Government do.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many reports produced by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the last five years have been prompted by him; and how many have been initiated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has no power to initiate investigations. It can investigate and report only on matters referred to it by Ministers, the Director General of Fair Trading, Director General of Telecommunications, Director General of Gas Supply, or the Civil Aviation Authority. In the last five years some 78 reports by the commission have been published. Of those my right hon. and noble Friend and his predecessors were responsible for initiating 54.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be manifest evidence of widespread discontent before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decides to investigate matters that are at the heart of our national life? Can my hon. Friend say whether his postbag or his constituency surgeries are bulging with letters or with discontented pub-goers, because mine are not? Is the commission short of work, or is Government policy perhaps dictated by liberal interventionism, as evidenced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs?

As I told my hon. Friend in my original reply, the MMC does not initiate investigations. The inquiry to which my hon. Friend makes oblique reference was referred to it by the Director General of Fair Trading in the belief that certain matters required investigation. The report that the commission produced bears that out. As to the contents of my postbag, I can tell my hon. Friend that I received at least as many representations in favour of implementing the MMC's report as I did against. We are weighing those representations very carefully to arrive at the right answer. When a report containing trenchant findings, as that report did, is produced it is clearly not an option for the Government to do nothing.

Will my hon. Friend say out of the long list of people that he gave, which of them is the lunatic who referred the merger between William Hill and Mecca to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Whatever the outcome may be, the fact remains that William Hill, for which I had the pleasure of working for six years, no longer exists in its previous form. Its directors have either retired or resigned, and anything that the MMC does is now a complete waste of time and money.

No doubt my hon. Friend will make his observations, in whatever form he feels is appropriate, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is carrying out that investigation. The reference was made on the very firm advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responses his Department has received to the White Paper on information technology (Cm. 646).

I have received written comments on the White Paper from one firm, a United Kingdom computer manufacturer.

The Government are now involved in negotiating a detailed sector plan with the breweries. Is it not time for the Government to get around a table with the information technology industry to try to find a way for Britain to reduce the £4 billion trade deficit in this vital industry? Why has the House not debated the White Paper on information technology, and when can we expect to see a trade surplus in IT?

I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being present for the debate that we had on information technology a couple of months ago. Perhaps he did not notice that there was to be a debate, or perhaps his interest was not as great then as it seems to be now.

The Opposition's record has stuck in a groove. The same phrases and the same prompts have been used twice in fairly quick succession, and, if I may, I shall give the same answer. Of all the major OECD countries, only Japan has a surplus in IT products. The proud record of the United Kingdom is a trade surplus in IT with the rest of the European Community. We shall not contemplate the old-fashioned and time-worn answer of sector plans: we threw that out years ago, and as a result our economy has boomed and become successful.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the cost to industry of recent rises in interest rates.

Bank base rates have risen by one percentage point in 1989. The estimated cost to industrial and commercial companies of such an increase is about £0.4 billion in a full year.

What is the point of the DTI running a £12 million publicity campaign to raise industry's awareness of 1992 when at the same time the Treasury's high interest rates policy is undermining any investment boom that the Minister thinks that he sees, and crippling the long-term capacity of British industry to compete? In recent months, as we have seen, the Chancellor has been prepared to sing a different song and to stand up even to the Prime Minister. When will the Minister stand up for British industry and take on the Chancellor in the interest rates battle?

The latest survey of manufacturing industry's investment intentions suggests a further rise of some 15 per cent. in the present year, following a rise of about 15 per cent. last year. That reflects the continuing financial strength of British companies. I have here, and would read out if I had time, a string of investment projects in the hon. Gentleman's own city which, as he must know well, have been announced in recent months or are already going ahead.

If interest rates were reduced as the Opposition recommend, would not domestic inflation increase and the value of sterling diminish, and would not that in itself add to inflation?

I see no reason to quarrel with my hon. Friend's analysis. He has made the point well that the real threat to the future of British industry would be a resurgence of inflation, taking it back to the levels run consistently by the last Labour Government.

What factors does the Minister believe will lead to a reduction in inflation, and what is going on now that will result in such a reduction?

The damping down of the pressure of domestic demand, which is the objective of the Government's policies, has, I think, been acknowledged —for instance, in a number of recent surveys and speeches by the CBI—to be having an effect, not least in the much slower rise in factory-gate prices, which will feed through to the retail prices index in due course.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that, given the 15 per cent. increase in investment in this country, it ill behoves the Opposition to give us lectures on advances and investment in industry when their own leader, when asked by Mr. Naughtie on BBC radio whether they had any answer to the problem of inflation, replied that he had no such answer. We recognise that interest rates present the only way of curbing inflation.

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.

In view of the continuing damage done to British industry by the Chancellor's attempt to buck the markets through high interest rates, what representations has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made to him on the subject?

The hon. Gentleman refers to "the continuing damage to British industry". I invite him to explain why we now have a dramatically greater investment boom, a dramatically greater improvement in productivity and a dramatically greater improvement in output than when the Administration that he supported left office. That is the strengthening of the British economy that has taken place.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what monitoring he has undertaken of the level of awareness among business men of the single market achieved by his Department's "Europe—Open for Business" campaign.

The Department of Trade and Industry carries out a detailed survey of 100 different firms every week. The results show that 90 per cent. of business throughout the country is aware of the single market.

Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the CBI survey which shows that three quarters of British companies have taken action on 1992? Surveys in France and Spain show that half the companies have taken action, a survey in Italy shows that a third of companies have taken action and another survey in West Germany shows that one seventh of companies have taken action. Does my hon. Friend take some comfort from the fact that the action that his Department is taking is having some success?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the CBI survey. He is also right to say that it bodes very well indeed for the future, but that is not to say that British firms can become complacent and relax. The opening of the single market by the end of 1992 will, as I have said before, create much sharper competition. Every firm will have to intensify its activities and increase its cutting edge. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the extent to which British firms are doing better, and doing it faster, than other firms in the Community.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that neither the British people nor British industry are fooled by glossy television advertising? [Interruption.] It may have escaped the attention—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.

It may have escaped the attention of Government Members that we are not permitted to advertise during election campaigns in this country. Does the Minister accept, however, that glossy television advertising does not fool either the British people or British industry? They understand very well that the legacy of 10 Tory years has left British industry woefully ill prepared for the single European market. That is one of the major reasons for the Government's disastrous showing in last week's Euro-elections.

I can think of no better demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's first proposition than the result of the 1987 general election. As for the hon. Gentleman's second proposition, the fact is that British business is now in better shape. It is fitter; productivity is better; output is higher. In every way British business is better fitted than it has been for a generation to take advantage of the opportunities. The one thing that British business does not need is advice from the hon. Gentleman on how to conduct itself.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in the regulation of estate agents.

After an extensive review of estate agency issues, I have concluded that the best way to achieve a significant improvement in the practices of estate agency is through a combination of self-regulation and statutory provision. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss with the industry the introduction of a code of practice for estate agency. He has agreed to report early next year.

We will need to support this code by acting against a number of undesirable practices, including tie-in sales where the agent refuses to pass on bids unless the purchaser agrees to arrange finance or insurance through him. I intend to do this by introducing an order under section 3 of the Act which would define certain practices as "undesirable." I have also asked the director general to review the arguments for extending the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to misdescriptions of property.

Copies of my report have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

Does the Minister agree that the people of this country have been ripped off too often by estate agents and that it is time that there were statutory, not voluntary, regulations to curtail the cowboys among estate agents?

I assure the House that this was not a planted question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider carefully the answer that I have given rather than make a pre-prepared response. I am sure that he will find in my proposals and in the report that I have placed in the Library and Vote Office that I am dealing firmly but fairly with estate agency problems.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that any legislation that he introduces will contain a provision that recognises that organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are governed by proper professional standards?

Yes, I am pleased to acknowledge the role that the RICS and many other bodies have played in bringing forward their own positive suggestions to make the property transfer market work as efficiently as possible. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that we are not contemplating new legislation. I am using the provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979 in what I regard as appropriate ways.

Has the Minister found time to respond to some of the criticisms levelled at the voluntary, self-regulatory approach by some of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) who said that the rules of conduct should be enshrined in law and backed up by full powers of the law? Furthermore, will the Minister's proposals for regulating estate agents deal with the worst abuse at present—estate agents preferring purchasers who are also getting financial services from those estate agents?

I can confirm that that is precisely one of the matters that will be covered by my invocation of the statutory powers under section 3 of the Estate Agents Act. I am sure that when the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) study my proposals in detail, they will find that they are to their entire satisfaction.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Fourteen hon. Members have so far expressed an interest in speaking in this debate. If their speeches are brief, most of them, I hope all, will be called.

I beg to move,

That this House, noting Her Majesty's Government's failure to address the growing problem of food safety, deplores the decision to close the Institute of Food Research at Langford near Bristol with the corresponding loss of scientific expertise; believes that this will further reduce Her Majesty's Government's ability to protect the health of the British people; regrets that, two years after the Department of Health issued a consultative document on the control of food hygiene, regulations have still not been laid before Parliament; expresses concern at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's decision to reduce veterinarians in their employ by one quarter and at the national shortage of Environmental Health Officers which leaves many posts unfilled; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce more effective safety and hygiene regulations, to increase the monitoring of food production and safety and to reverse its short sighted policy of cutting research and development work.

This is a timely debate which, in a sense, is proven by the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in it. It is also timely because, after 10 years of Conservative administration, we have a food poisoning outbreak of epidemic proportions. Only last week, we had the worst outbreak for years of botulism, which is a particular nasty and deadly toxin. Last Wednesday, the Government gave what can only be described as a bizarre response to this immensely serious problem. Their response was to close the Institute of Food Research at Bristol, which ranks among the premier meat research institutes in the world.

rose—

With respect, Mr. Speaker has asked us to be fairly brief, but I will give way on this point.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but surely he knows that that particular infection and toxin was not identified at Bristol, but at the public health laboratory service—the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down—which has nothing to do with the closure of which he spoke.

I will treat the hon. Gentleman's intervention with the disdain that it deserves and ignore it as being absolutely irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman ought to think before he gets to his feet. No one suggested that botulism research was being done at Bristol—those were the hon. Gentleman's words-—but I will return to that point in due course.

The act of closing the Bristol institute is typical of Government's response, which is illogical, short-sighted and plain stupid. We should not be surprised that we have these food poisoning epidemics. After all, we have a Government headed by a Prime Minister whose driving philosophy is the enterprise culture and the profit motive. She has weakened food regulations and opposed modification of them, reduced the number of staff involved in safety monitoring and slashed research into food hygiene and quality. The ethos of her Administration can be summarised in the title of the White Paper that she produced, "Lifting the Burdens". She responded positively to that theme in her speech in Nottingham during the European election campaign.

The folly of that approach can be seen most clearly in connection with food. Experience worldwide has taught us that regulation and controls are vital if food safety standards are to be maintained. As recent elections have shown, the British people have not been fooled by the Tory policy. They recognise that that approach is a recipe for an epidemic of food poisoning and a lowering of standards. That is exactly what we have in Britain in 1989.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have already given way once, after only 30 seconds, and that intervention wasted my time and that of the House.

I know that Conservative Members object to my comments, but the facts speak for themselves. In February of this year, the National Consumer Council commissioned a poll on consumer perception of food safety. The results show that 40 per cent. of those questioned were not confident that they had sufficient information to ensure that the food that they bought was safe. Consumers have every justification for being suspicious. Basic food hygiene regulations have not kept pace with changes in food technology. Most of them were made in the days before microwave ovens, cook-chill and convenience food. The facilities for storing food in retail outlets just cannot cope.

There are horrific stories. In one food manufacturing unit in Birmingham, the owner kept an air rifle to shoot the rats running about the establishment. That is true. Practically the whole of the Royal Air Force strike command in north-east Scotland was laid low after eating oysters. It transpired that these had been supplied not from the Soviet Union but from Japan, and were labelled in Japanese, so no one preparing the oysters could read the instructions. That emphasises the need for more sensible labelling.

Those are interesting, if not amusing anecdotes, but there is a serious aspect to the problem. In 1980, a mere —I use the word advisedly—10,318 cases of food poisoning were notified, while last year that had nearly trebled to over 28,000 cases.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I know that the hon. Lady participates in these debates, usually with a great deal of intelligence, but I wish to press ahead because I am conscious of the time.

Already this year, there have been 12,396 cases of food poisoning, while in the same period last year there were 7,930. I know that Tory Members deride statistics, but they are serious and, on occasion, represent deaths.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Many of my constituents are keen on green-top milk, which is unpasteurised and contains a helpful enzyme. They are extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has given way and will allow us to retain green-top milk.

The hon. Lady has made an ingenious intervention. I am sure that her right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board those plaudits.

The House will recall that the Government's initial response to the salmonella crisis six months ago was to curtail research into salmonella at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol. The Governments folly on that occasion was astounding, but that is not the whole story. The Government were also caught unaware by botulism. They should not have been because the eminent microbiologist Professor Richard Lacey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should tell Conservative Members that Professor Lacey is an official adviser to the Government and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He actually predicted in his book, "Safe Shopping, Safe Cooking and Safe Eating" that botulism

"could return unless the catering industry addresses the problem."

Professor Lacey was not being clairvoyant—he was reading the book, so to speak. Only last year, Europe's biggest botulism outbreak among cattle occurred in the United Kingdom. It was caused by a herd being fed a mixture containing chicken carcasses. Ironically, last year the Government ordered the Institute of Food Research to stop work on a project involving the feeding of chicken carcasses to cattle and the links with botulism. That is why there was no work at Bristol last week to detect the outbreaks of botulism. The Government actually stopped that work. They had learnt nothing—having stopped research into salmonella, they compounded their folly by doing the same with botulism.

What is the Government's response to the food crisis? Deep analysis reveals a twin approach. First, they believe that the interests of the public can be protected, in some perverse way, by cutting research and development and closing research establishments. Secondly, to compensate for the resulting huge gap in public health protection, the Government think that they have discovered a new panacea—irradiation. On both counts the Government are wrong.

—During recent years research projects into food safety and hygience have been axed one after another. Recently the Government decided on further closures and cuts following the so-called Barnes review. The effect of the review is to cut by £30 million the money spent on research and development in agriculture and food. The latest example of that was the closure of the institute at Bristol. That was absolutely incomprehensible. Not only will many excellent projects disappear, but more than 100 scientists will lose their jobs. With those jobs will go the experience and expertise—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] If that is not true, I hope that the Minister will say so and give us more information. My information is that only six out of more than 100 jobs at Bristol will be relocated. The Minister should deny that if I am wrong.

In an attempt to cover up their folly, the Government have given the impression that jobs and projects will be transferred. That is a travesty of the truth. Only six jobs will be transferred and of the 80-plus projects, many involving food safety and hygiene, not more than a handful will be transferred. If I am wrong, I challenge the Minister to say which projects will be transferred. I am sure that there will not be more than a handful.

We shall lose vital work on meat hygiene. Neither the abattoir at the Bristol institute, which allows practical experiments, nor the highly praised food processing hall are being transferred. Work on refrigeration, which is vital to food hygiene and safety is being terminated. Not only expertise, but facilities which exist nowhere else in the United Kingdom are being lost.

In the long run, the main loser from the Government's obsession with cost-cutting will be the consumer. The closure has been forced by the Government's obsession. On 22 May 1989, the Minister announced, with great pleasure, that he had managed to save £379 million in agricultural spending last year.

In the CAP.

When one compares that figure with the £111 million expected expenditure on research and development for this financial year, it places Government priorities in perspective. To put it another way, the Minister's annual savings last year would have kept the Bristol institute open for 100 years. That puts the Government's policies in perspective.

The Minister has completely misjudged the position on food irradiation. Does he know that one of the foremost members of his advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods, which produced the report on irradiation in 1986 on which he places so much store, has now changed his mind about the process and has said that it is "unnecessary" and doomed to commercial failure. To quote from a recent interview with Professor Philip James, in The Press and Journal Aberdeen:

"The real dilemma now is that people no longer have confidence that a Ministry of Agriculture linked to the producer and processor is going to safeguard the public interest. The public have been overwhelmed by the knowledge that certain companies have been using irradiation to salvage rotten food … It is a sad reflection of how the Government and some food manufacturers don't appear to understand how to manage affairs of public interest in the fields of health and safety."

That is a damning indictment of the Ministry by one of its top advisers.

Professor Philip James is not the only person to express concern. Various organisations, including the National Farmers Union, which is dear to the Minister's heart, and the British Medical Association, which is not so dear to the Government's heart, and prominent food retailing companies such as the Co-op, Tesco and Marks and Spencer have also expressed concern about irradiation. People not only now demand to know whether their food is to be irradiated, but why it needs to be irradiated. That is the key question that the Government should answer.

The Labour party does not believe that irradiation is the answer to our food poisoning problems. It is no alternative to ensuring that cleaner food is on sale in the shops. Irradiation would be no incentive to ensure that high hygiene standards are maintained throughout the food chain. Irradiation will leave food more open to subsequent bacteriological contamination. There is no easy and effective method of detecting whether food has been irradiated or, even more importantly, reirradiated. To return to the recent problem of botulism, perhaps the Minister will confirm that irradiation would have had no effect on wiping out that botulism as it is a toxin.

Another point about irradiation, which has been expressed clearly by Professor James, is that it could be used to make bad food clean. The Minister will be aware, for example, that there have been verified reports of seafood being imported into Britain, mainly from the far east, which has subsequently been found to be substandard. That food has then been exported to Holland, irradiated by Gammaster and then re-imported into Britain and sold illegally—the same food that had been found to be substandard. The incident occurred three years ago, but we have good reason to believe that the trade continues. I have in my possession a letter from Gammaster dated 10 May 1989, agreeing to supply irradiated seafood to Britain. The letter states:

"Our quality assurance include taking samples of each shipment of prawns before irradiation. The Dutch Food Inspectors also take samples before and after irradiation. I would like to emphasize that the irradiation of food products is not yet allowed in the United Kingdom".

However, the letter also suggests the name of the Dutch transport company which would arrange delivery of that food. A telex from the transport company—Allways Transport BV—the following day states:

"in order to enable Gammaster to irradiate this consignment, it is necessary to arrange import of the goods temporarily (without paying duties or VAT of course). Before we can arrange this customs clearance we will have to present a `health certificate' in acordance with the EEC 'shrimp decree'."

Several of my hon. Friends have tabled an early-day motion on this serious matter. As it is clear from the correspondence that the trade is well organised, I hope that the Minister will pursue the case. Unfortunately, when we passed similar correspondence to his predecessor three years ago, the Government refused to act. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will respond positively.

I know that the Minister is alert to the problem because the research consultative committee residues sub-group of the Ministry of Agriculture revealed in its minutes last year that it was aware of the

"potential for some commodities to arrive in the UK which already have been subjected to irradiation."

I stress that that point was made by one of the Minister's own sub-committees last year.

It is because of such uncertainties that the Labour party opposes the introduction of food irradiation in Britain. It is like using gloss paint to cover rotten window frames.

To sum up, the Government's approach to protecting the nation's health from contaminated food has been abysmal. As we have seen in the past few months, they have adopted a crisis management approach. Indeed, it is hard to understand their actions in recent months. When confronted with a food poisoning epidemic what do they do? They cut the number of staff who monitor and control diseases; they close a food research institute; they introduce food irradiation, which nobody wants; and as a final insult, they produce a leaflet putting the blame for food poisoning where it certainly does not belong—on the consumer. I hope that the House will join us in condemning the Government.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:

`commends the Government for implementing a comprehensive range of measures to maintain safety throughout the food chain and to improve the scientific knowledge on which these are based; notes with approval the Agricultural and Food Research Council's decision to strengthen the work of its Institute of Food Research at the Norwich and Reading sites by expanding programmes on food safety and nutrition; endorses the Government's policy of transferring responsibility for near market research and development to industry, enabling more Government funds to be channelled into strategic research; congratulates the Government on the substantial increase in resources for research into food safety during the past ten years; and expresses confidence in the Government's policies on food safety and research and development.'.

The speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was fragmentary in the extreme and extremely fragile in its evidence. I shall demonstrate both those points.

As this is a general debate on food safety, I shall begin by setting out in framework the main elements of the Government's food safety policy. That is necessary because of the hon. Gentleman's spasmodic speech. Indeed, the main elements of our policy are consistent and thorough and are worth restating. I shall do that briefly because the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), dealt with this at length in his speech in the food safety debate earlier this year, on 21 February, and because I have done so on many previous occasions. Furthermore, you, Mr. Speaker, have reminded us that this is a short debate.

The essential elements are, first, a careful and thorough monitoring of the food supply so as to be certain that whatever we do is based on a factual assessment of the situation as a whole; secondly, thorough surveillance to detect any trends that need analysis or policy action of one sort or another; and, thirdly, continuous and in-depth assessment of the facts that emerge using the best possible scientific advice.

In view of the highly selective scientific examples given by the hon. Member for South Shields, I stress that we use the best possible scientific advice over a wide range, using many people.

rose—

This is a short debate; I will give way once.

Does the Minister agree that if he wants the best and most independent scientific advice, by definition any scientists who are also paid by the food industry should not be employed by the Government to give advice?

I shall be able to demonstrate shortly that we use a much wider range of scientific expertise, so that is a feeble attack.

The fourth essential element is decisive action, which could be legislative or advisory on the basis of the expert advice that we have received, and sometimes further research is called for. The fifth essential element is the provision of full information and guidance to the public. Indeed, we publish so much that often the problem is to get even a small proportion of it over. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary illustrated that graphically in the last debate. The sixth essential element is proper monitoring and enforcement to ensure that legislative obligations are carried out by all in the food chain.

I have available to me substantial resources to carry out these tasks. In my Department I have more than 500 staff engaged in work on policies that relate to consumer protection. Many of them are highly qualified specialists in one branch of science or another. They provide the sound scientific basis to our assessment, enforcement and research activities.

As the House by now will know—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) —we are assisted by a wide range of expert committees covering pretty well every area of food matters—to which we have just added the Richmond committee on the microbiological safety of food—to advise us on the many technological developments that are now such an important feature of modern food production. Together we have available some hundreds of independent scientists and experts drawn from the universities, medical schools, research bodies, industry, consumer backgrounds and so on—all leading experts in their particular fields and chosen for their experience and the breadth of knowledge they can bring to bear. They assist us in the assessment of risks of all kinds that are faced by any modern food producing industry, and my colleagues and I rely heavily on their advice. The Opposition keep mentioning one or two scientists. I have been emphasising that we have hundreds of scientists available to us. All aspects of the subject are considered, expertly and in considerable depth, and I stress again the scientists' independence.

The reports that are produced are published. In the case of the steering group on food surveillance there have been no fewer than 25 reports in recent year,. covering a wide range of subjects. Each of them is an authoritative scientific document on the subject under consideration. I repeat that the reports are published. But we do not just listen. We act, and we act promptly. In the last six months or so we have announced decisions on salmonella, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mineral hydrocarbons and aldrin, and given advice on a number of other subjects. Often the action goes comparatively unnoticed in the media, but it is taken notice of by the industry and the consumer is therefore protected.

rose—

This will have to be the last time that I give way.

In acknowledging, as the Opposition did not, that some £20 million was spent last year in support of food safety, I think that any hon. Member would accept that there is independent advice which the Department uses skilfully, but that it is implemented at the sharp end by environmental health officers. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will issue central guidelines to the environmental health officers? Otherwise they will go off at different tangents and will interpret the expert advice in different ways which could be misleading to the public. I know that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention.

We try to give advice and guidance wherever we can. If my hon. Friend has particular points in mind, perhaps he will write to me about them and I shall consider them.

One interesting example of the action that we take relates to certain chemical substances in cling film. Following analysis, our scientists in the Ministry advised that there was a small risk of some leaching to the food contained therein. In immediate consultation with the industries the substances were changed and even any potential slightest risk to the consumer was removed. All this demonstrates that there is no complacency whatever, only constant vigilance.

With the rapid changes in consumer habits these days, including the trend to fast and convenience foods and one-stop weekly shopping on the one hand, and the rapid developments in food technology and processes on the other, there can never be any cause for complacency. I point that out to the hon. Member for South Shields. Most of the Governments of Western Europe, the United States Government and others are finding new salmonella problems with particular types-—in the end we are talking about two types out of more than 2,000 strains—with listeria and with campylobacter at present.

As for botulism, with which the hon. Member for South Shields began his speech, if its continued existence is thought to be a sign of failure—the word in the Opposition motion—then it must be said that we in this country have achieved a measure of success that most other countries would be only too pleased to emulate.

The current outbreak, highly regrettable as it is, is nevertheless only the tenth in more than 65 years. The citizens of such countries as the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands—often held up, and rightly, as examples, like ourselves, of countries with high safety records and standards—are many times more likely to suffer from botulism than we are here.

I heard what the hon. Member for South Shields said about Professor Lacey and his book. Professor Lacey did not predict a botulism outbreak. In fact, the evidence to date of the present botulism outbreak points to a canned hazelnut preparation. Professor Lacey stated that

"the risk of food poisoning by canned food is tiny."

The action that we have taken on salmonella and BSE is typical of the serious and determined way in which we pursue our responsibilities.

As the House knows, the Government have adopted to date a comprehensive package of 19 measures to tackle this new salmonella problem in order to minimise the potential risk to public health.

Seventeen measures.

It was 17, but we are constantly doing what we believe is right to add to them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Shields cannot keep up with our pace on this matter.

One of the 19 measures is the food safety guidance leaflet. I was extremely sorry to hear the hon. Member for South Shields, who is normally very responsible in these matters, say that that was shifting the blame—or words to that effect—on to the consumer. He knows that research has shown that, because of the modern developments to which I have referred—such as weekly one—stop shopping —and the new food technologies, much of the risk of food poisoning can take place after the manufacturing process. Therefore, any responsible Government should give advice to consumers as to how, at their end of the food chain, they can protect themselves from food poisoning. I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman denigrates our action of supplying the food safety leaflet. That is a sign of gross irresponsibility. I believe that he has been proved wrong by the fact that it is a best seller, and we shall almost certainly have to reprint it shortly. It shows that we are meeting a positive and, I think, a desirable demand.

I noticed that the Minister moved quickly away from the 17 salmonella measures. He knows that he announced 17, but in a written answer, dated 19 June, that I received from the Parliamentary Secretary I was told that two of the key issues still wait to be laid before the House. When will we get the document—three months later?

I have not moved off the subject yet, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am still dealing with the 19 measures. We have announced all the measures. We have nearly all of them in place and we are carrying all the others through with all due speed. As he knows, some of them require consultation and then parliamentary action. We have announced that we are taking 19 specific measures on the new salmonella problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest information from the public health laboratory shows that, despite a recent increase in the consumption of chicken and poultry generally, the incidence of salmonella has dropped considerably? Does that not show that the measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend and the industry have been a great success?

As my hon. Friend knows, like other countries, we were faced with a new problem. It is obviously encouraging if there is a change in the trend of cases. We must maintain our vigilance, and the measures remain important. I do not believe that the measures will fully bite for some time—not until they take full effect. I want to be clear about that.

We have taken those 19 measures at all possible stages in the chain from the animal feeding stuffs level, through breeding flocks and hatcheries, to laying flocks and on into the home.

All in all, we are making extremely good progress in introducing those important measures in Britain. No other country in the world has such an impressive range of measures to tackle this exceptionally complex problem.

On the totally new disease of BSE, the moment our veterinary scientists identified what the problem was I set up the Southwood committee; then stopped the feed protein source of the disease, again as soon as our scientists—they were ours—concluded that this was the most likely source; and acted immediately on all the interim and final recommendations of that committee.

Last week I announced that further measures would be taken. Those will ensure that brain and spinal cord, together with certain other bovine offals, cannot be used for human consumption in any way.

I can assure the House that if the scientific evidence and advice suggests that other actions are needed we shall take them. In resource terms the commitment to BSE alone is likely to be in excess of £6 million this year. That, too, is a demonstration of how speedily and responsibly we act.

The emergence of new diseases, like the rapid rate of technological change in the food chain, places increasing demands on the flexibility of the system. It was for that reason among others that we felt that it was desirable to undertake a substantial review of the existing food legislation, which has generally served us well but which needs to be appropriate for all the demands of the 1990s, including developments on the European Community front. I suspect that the hon. Member for South Shields is with me on that.

That is why we have been undertaking a major consultation exercise with over 500 organisations, including many consumer groups, and, as a result, have concluded that the law should be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. We shall be bringing forward new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

I would expect new legislation to include strengthened controls in the areas of food hygiene—notably powers to require food premises to register with their local authority and powers to require the training of those who handle food; the introduction of emergency control orders to improve our ability to act in food emergencies, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already taken some action in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, introduced by the Government, which enabled me to deal with the Chernobyl situation; and powers to control novel foods and processes as well as a whole range of other changes designed to make food law and its enforcement more effective today to meet any new challenges that may arise.

Just as new technical problems can arise from new processes, so technology can give us new weapons in our armoury to enhance food safety and consumer protection. Let me deal with one such new weapon which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I want to begin by stressing that it is only one of many weapons in our armoury; it is not the panacea that the hon. Gentleman claimed it would be. In doing so, I hope that I shall answer all his points on food irradiation.

The House is aware that last year on 4 February we announced that the Government accepted in principle that the ban on irradiated food should be lifted, provided that —this was an important proviso—the proper control framework could be established. Therefore, we set up a working party to consider all the issues related to that control system and to make recommendations, and the House knows that I recently received its report.

I am today publishing that report. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office and in the Library. Based on the recommendations in the report, the Government intend to make available to the consumer and to the food industry the option of that additional measure for protecting certain foods. As I shall elaborate in a moment, there will be a number of opportunities for the House to consider that further in full. But I think it would be helpful if today I outline some of the key points.

First, I want to stress that the Government are basing their decision fundamentally on food safety and consumer grounds—on food safety, that irradiation has a useful contribution to make—a contribution, not the total answer—to the reduction of food—borne disease in certain products, and in some cases better than by other means; and for consumers, provided that we have the proper control and information framework, that it would be wrong to deprive consumers of the freedom to choose food treated by that safety method if they wish to avail themselves of it. It will not be thrust upon anyone. I repeat, it will not be thrust upon anyone.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

No. I have already given way a lot in this short debate.

I know that some have drawn attention to the ability of the process to extend the shelf life of some fruits by delaying their ripening processes. That, too, is a consumer benefit in that what the housewife buys will last longer in the home. But that is not why the Government are proposing to legalise this process, and I wish to underline that. It was considerations of food safety that were predominant in reaching our decision.

It may be helpful if I remind the House of the background to the subject. There is a mistaken impression that food irradiation is something new about which we ought to learn much more before permitting its use in this country, but that is far from being the case. The first patent on food irradiation was taken out as long ago as 1921, so it saw the light of day well before the birth of most current right hon. and hon. Members of this House, myself included. Considerable research on the process has been undertaken over more than 40 years, and scientists tell me that it has been subject to much closer scrutiny worldwide than any other food process.

The safety of the process was established long ago by distinguished authorities of unimpeachable international standing. Top level joint expert committees of the principal international agencies, including the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, carried out in-depth safety evaluations over a period of years in the 1970s and confirmed in a report in 1980 that food irradiation up to an overall average dose of 10 kilogray is safe and introduces no special nutritional or microbilogical problems. That report was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1983.

Similar conclusions were reached following full assessments by other national and international bodies. The process's safety, for example, was confirmed by the European Community's Scientific Committee for Food and by the United State's Food and Drugs Administration.

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to continue because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

Nevertheless, we adopted a thoroughly careful attitude and put in hand our own independent expert assessment. In 1982 we established the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Burgen, Master of Darwin college, Cambridge. The committee comprised distinguished specialists in all aspects of the subject. Its report, published in 1986, concluded that if correctly applied and up to the level of dose stipulated in the international research of 10 kilogray, irradiation is an effective and efficient form of food preservation treatment.

The committee was satisfied as to the safety and wholesomeness of the food that would result from irradiation and made it clear that for all practical purposes there would be no change in the low level of radioactivity that food naturally contains. In 1987 the committee was reconvened to consider scientific responses to its report and, having done so, reaffirmed its conclusions.

I set out that history to make absolutely clear one basic point—that the safety of food irradiation has been assessed repeatedly over the years by people both in this country and abroad whose highly specialised training and experience best qualifies them to assess all aspects of the technique. The process has been cleared through the most comprehensive set of evaluations.

But who is asking for it?

I shall come to that point shortly.

No qualifications have been expressed, and no areas of safety remain outstanding. That is demonstrated by the number of countries that already allow use of the process. It is permitted in 35 countries around the world, and is already in operation in 21 of them. Those countries include the United States and four member states of the European Community. It may come as a surprise that we too permit irradiaton and have done so for the past 20 years or more. Throughout that time, irradiated food has been supplied to a limited number of cancer patients who, by reason of their disease or treatment, are at high risk of infection. We have recognised that those vulnerable members of our society, who require the most carefully controlled and safest diet that we can secure, have found it through irradiated food.

What are the advantages of irradiation for consumers generally? I shall deal shortly with the question of choice but first I must set the important scene of safety as a whole. The World Health Organisation is clear that by killing or greatly reducing the number of micro-organisms naturally present in food, irradiation has a useful contribution to make in reducing some—and I stress some—food-borne disease. Obviously, it cannot be used to treat all food products because in some cases it can affect taste and other qualities. Nevertheless, it is important in reducing some food-borne disease.

Irradiation has, for example, been shown to be effective in dealing with bacteria such as salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. It is not suitable for all foodstuffs, as I have already emphasised, but it has proved its value as a treatment for poultry meat. It is so used already in France and other countries, and the BMA's recent publication "Infection Control" mentions its particular effectiveness for the purpose. Some shellfish can also be successfully treated.

Second, for certain produce such as herbs and spices irradiation can be used to destroy insects, pests and bacterial contamination in place of the existing chemical fumigation methods, about some of which there are concerns on health grounds. For example, the chemical ethylene oxide, which is used for that purpose, is now banned in many countries of the European Community and will shortly no longer be available for use. Manufacturers and consumers need some means of being able to continue to make herbs and spices available without infestation.

All this is extending consumer choice, not damaging it. It is an effective way of dealing with some bacteria and hugs, but of course the essential pre-condition is a proper control mechanism. The Food Act gives the possibility of providing for the registration of irradiation facilities by local authorities. The Government have concluded, however, that it is preferable to have a full licensing system under central Government control, rather than through local authorities. Closer and more specialised supervision will he achieved through the concentration of the powers by central administration than if the responsibility is diffused. This will permit detailed inspection by specialists and the imposition of precise conditions with the granting of licences. It will mean delaying the introduction of food irradiation until we can obtain more extensive powers in the new food Bill, but we think it right to do so.

Conditional upon the licence will be the maintenance of clear and full records, which will be regularly inspected and will allow for the tracing of consignments treated and the verification, through the recording instrument readings, of the dose applied. A further provision will be a requirement that full documentation must accompany each consignment leaving the irradiated plant, so that recipients of irradiated food at any point in the distribution chain are aware of the treatment that has been given.

Apart from inspection of the documentation and of the measuring instruments—the dosimeters—the premises would also be subject to the normal local authority controls on food hygiene. It would be necessary for local authorities to satisfy themselves that good manufacturing practices were being followed and that, in particular, there was proper segregation of treated and untreated foodstuffs and the possibility of contamination after treatment was avoided.

For imported supplies it will be necessary for us to make arrangements to check that the control systems applied and the standards achieved by countries wishing to export to the United Kingdom are equivalent to the controls and standards to be applied in this country. If the European Community's proposal goes ahead, action will of course follow on a Community basis, but, whether Community or national arrangements need to be made, we are quite clear that proper reassurances must be obtained.

As important as the control framework is that consumers should be able to make an informed choice, so that those who do not want irradiated food can be assured that they are not buying it.

Will the Minister give way?

I think that I must move on as I must also answer the debate.

Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

There will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to speak. In any case, I am about to give the answer: making consumers aware whether they are buying irradiated food means labelling.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

The hon. Gentleman can make his contribution during the debate, and there will be many other opportunities.

I assure the House that the Government will insist on a firm requirement for full and clear labelling of all irradiated food and listed ingredients. We want wording that will be clearly understood, and the options that we have in mind, are "irradiated" and "treated with ionising radiation".

I am sure that the House will want to debate this issue in full, and as we must seek new powers there will be plenty of opportunities to do so. There may also be a chance to debate it before the summer recess if time can be found to consider European Community document No. 10377/88 on this subject, which the European Community Scrutiny Committee has recommended for debate. There will thus be many occasions to respond to the concerns and to dispel the myths, but today I should like to deal with the two most common ones.

First, it is argued that the treatment should not be allowed in the absence of a detention test that can confirm its use. There are plenty of views to the contrary. The World Health Organisation did not consider that necessary; nor did Codex or the United States Food and Drug Administration. Moreover, our own advisory committee gave particular attention to the point. It concluded that, while a detection test could be a useful supplement to a control system based on licensing and documentation, such as we shall have, it was not necessary for the satisfactory operation of controls. Furthermore, none of the 21 countries already allowing irradiation and operating control systems around the world considered it necessary to wait for the availability of a diagnostic method. The crucial factor is the control system, but given that a diagnostic method could be a useful supplement we shall continue to fund the research work that we are doing on this.

Second, it is argued that irradiation can somehow be misused to make bad food good. I am advised that this is simply nonsense. Irradiation cannot improve appearance, it cannot disguise taste, it cannot mask unpleasant odours. If food is not of acceptable microbiological standard, then these factors will give it away. Food irradiation will not save it.

Moreover, we intend to provide for the examination of food prior to treatment, and we shall be providing that food that does not meet the normal acceptable standards of the industry shall not be irradiated. It will remain an offence to sell or offer for sale unfit food, whether irradiated or not.

Therefore, I commend the working party's report to the House and the Government's decisions upon it. I repeat that irradiation is not a panacea for food safety. I do not, and never will, suggest that it is. It is only one weapon in our large armoury. All the other measures I have talked about today and on other occasions continue to be important parts of the whole surveillance, regulatory and legislative framework that we have to ensure the highest standards of food safety. However, it does offer for certain products a further and successful way of enhancing safety. It can provide clear consumer benefits. In our view, it is now wrong to deprive the food producer and the consumer of the free choice to avail themselves of it, if they wish to do so, and it is on that basis that I am making this announcement today.

Let me underline that point once and for all. Consumers in Britain, under a Conservative Government, enjoy a right to safety, a right to be informed and a right to choose. Irradiated food is safe, irradiated food will be properly labelled and consumers will have the right to buy it and the right to refuse to buy it. Only an irresponsible Government, neglectful of consumer interests, would deny British consumers the same protection as is already afforded to consumers in over 20 other countries. All this demonstrates the responsible and carefully considered approach of the Government to food safety matters. I can hardly say the same about some of the allegations of the Opposition.

The other day the hon. Member for South Shields alleged on "The World this Weekend"—and he has said it again, in part, today—that they have documentary evidence—repeated examples, he said—of seafood coming into this country, being declared as unfit for human consumption and then being exported, irradiated and reimported back here. He said that these companies had actually been flouting the law and that

"the Government has known about it, has turned a blind eye and indeed appear to be encouraging these companies to break the law."

These are serious allegations. I shall therefore be quite fair with the hon. Member for South Shields—and, I hope, quite clear. I should be concerned about any allegations of companies flouting the law. I have therefore checked whether we knew about them. We did not. I have made clear publicly that I would be happy to look at any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can give us.

In the same programme the hon. Gentleman said that he would pass this information on to me. That was 11 days ago. So far I have not received anything from him, but I hope that I shall do so shortly. [Interruption.]

rose—

The hon. Gentleman said that there had been "repeated examples" of seafood coming into this country, and he said that they were recent repeated examples. The only allegations that I can find are in early-day motion 950, signed by a number of his hon. Friends, making allegations about named companies. Is that the evidence that the hon. Gentleman had in mind? I should be very interested to know whether that is the evidence.

I did not pass it on to the Minister previously—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient for a little longer I shall explain why. Three years ago we passed information to the Minister's predecessor —[Interruption.] Hon. Members must let me finish—including the certificates of irradiation from Gammaster. The Minister's predecessor refused to act upon that information. I have the information and I shall pass it on to the Minister. I made it quite clear today that I would pass it on to the Minister, but I wanted to make sure that it was on the record in the House before I did so. Only by doing so could I guarantee a response from the Minister. I think that the Minister will look into the matter seriously in view of the Government's record. That is why I did not pass it on to him.

That is a frightfully feeble answer. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it suggests that he is more interested in grabbing headlines than in dealing with serious issues responsibly.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there was one case, involving Young's, in January 1985. The company received a severe warning at the time and there is no evidence that anything has happened involving that company since. That is the only case of which I and my Ministry know. That was only one example four years ago and the hon. Gentleman has never suggested otherwise. The hon. Gentleman said on "The World this Weekend" that we had evidence of repeated examples. We have no such evidence; therefore, I had to turn to the early-day motion.

Some of the companies named are Dutch, and some of the imputed actions referred to in the early-day motion took place in other countries. It is not for me to comment on those since they would he matters for other authorities. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman that if this is his evidence, all three British food importing firms referred to have firmly denied the stories, and indeed my Department's regular contacts with the authorities in the Netherlands have provided no information that would support the Opposition's claims.

I repeat that 1 am ready to look at any evidence. But I think it is disreputable to name companies in an early-day motion without firm evidence, and I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has firmly, on the Order Paper, rejected the allegation made against one of the firms. I shall look at any evidence, but ultimately the best guarantee of dealing with the issue and ensuring that irradiation is used responsibly and properly is to have the new control system that we have in place.

I ask the House to contrast the difference in the approach of the two parties—the Government's careful, thorough consideration based on the fullest scientific evidence, the establishment of a proper control framework, making a very useful device for food safety available to consumers who want it, and the irresponsible allegations by the Opposition.

I turn briefly to some of the other charges made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech today. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will deal with one or two other matters in winding up. I shall turn first to research and development on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated and in which he knows I have a particular interest.

I make no apology for the Government's approach to the funding of near market research and development because I am sure that it makes sense. It is right that the Government should review their priorities on research and development across the board from time to time, and that is what we have been doing. It is right to ask the agrochemical and farming industries to fund the near market development work, that is that which is close to commercial exploitation—as they do in any other industry. That work is to their benefit—they can better assess the commercial possibilities and are more likely that way to carry the results through to full development in the market place—and it avoids duplication. We estimate the industry itself is funding more than £300 million a year of R and D, most of it probably near market.

But that is a different matter from research on food safety, which is not affected. Indeed we are now spending over £10 million a year on food safety and nutrition research, and it has been steadily increasing. It is noteworthy that expenditure on food research has more than doubled in real terms under this Government and since the Opposition left office.

Last week's decision by the Agricultural and Food Research Council to consolidate the work of its Institute of Food Research at its Norwich and Reading sites has to be seen in this context. The near market research from which Government support is being withdrawn at the food research institute is work on eating quality, flavours, shelf life and non-food safety aspects of food processing. That work is of interest to the industry and we hope it will fund it, but it is not related to food safety or other public good issues and I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

So far as food safety is concerned, the decision to restructure the IFR means: more scientists working together on food research at Reading and Norwich, in a more focused way, using the most sophisticated equipment and technology available; an enhanced capacity to deal with a wide range of micro-organisms, including salmonella, listeria and those causing botulism; and increased funding for research in these and other food safety areas.

In Norwich and Reading, the United Kingdom will continue to possess a world-class Institute of Food Research. It will ensure a sound science base which can address and resolve issues of concern to the consumer, the housewife, the man in the street, the producer and industry. For food safety there are real, positive gains.

It is absolutely wrecking the national fruit variety collections at Brogdale.

I want to move on.

Had time permitted, I should have liked to deal with a number of other issues relating to early-day motions and my hon. Friend will try to deal with some of them when he replies to the debate.

Finally, I want to touch on one matter not raised by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, pesticides. The Government have taken more action than any other on pesticides. We have a proper statutory system of approval, registration and control for the first time. No one has the right to sell a pesticide, to store it, advertise it or use it unless it has been given safety clearance and approval by Ministers. That is all in the interests of consumers and users.

Before there is any possibility of approval the company has to have tested the safety of the product in terms of health and the environment and its efficacy in use. And there is thorough independent, scientific evaluation.

An independent committee, the Advisory Committee for Pesticides, makes a scientific assessment.

Detailed monitoring takes place thereafter, not least by the working party on pesticides residues. Regular sampling takes place. From time to time concern about pesticides emerges and it is important to set out what we have in place.

Such a control system needs to be completed with an enforcement regime and a policy of public information and guidance in which our agricultural inspectorate plays a crucial part.

Against the background of a control system which is as comprehensive as we can devise and as expert as we can get I have to report to the House an extraordinary incident which occurred last week.

A few days before that, my officials became aware that the Labour party was advertising in one of its magazines two insecticides. My officials established to their satisfaction that the products advertised had no approval, and that the advertisement showed no regard to the legal requirements. Without reference to Ministers my officials did what they would do to any other trader who appeared to be breaking the law, and issued a notice requiring that the Labour party ceased selling non-approved products, and ensured that advertisements observe the established regulations.

Imagine my astonishment when the first I heard of this was, via the press, a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party demanding that I repudiate the actions of my officials immediately. So there we have it from the party professing such environmental and safety concern —one law for the Labour party on pesticide regulations and another for everybody else; great moral huffing and puffing as far as everyone else is concerned and unrighteous indignation when the law is applied to the Labour party.

The hon. Gentleman talked about deregulation. It is the Labour party's version of deregulation. For the Labour party it means deregulation beyond the law. That sums it up.

The Opposition spokesman has admitted that his party came to food issues very late. He said that it was a huge field that the Opposition had neglected. The Opposition are willing to throw about wild allegations without proper assessment of the facts and throw their weight about to get me to ask my officials to bend the law in their favour. The Government devote very substantial resources to food safety matters and give them high priority, have a well-established set of mechanisms for obtaining the best scientific evidence and advice, take effective action promptly and give the highest priority to consumer protection and consumer choice. That is why I have no hesitation in commending the Government amendment and urging the House to reject the Opposition motion.

In a long and dismal procession of incompetent Ministers who have paraded themselves before the House in recent months we have surely heard one of the worst this afternoon. The only "green" thing about the Minister's Department is probably the tie worn by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Two aspects stand out from today's debate: first, the woeful incompetence of the Ministries entrusted with responsibility for public health in this country; secondly, the need to define clearly the objectives that we should be pursuing. The failure of the relevant Ministries is most clearly shown by the disjointed, defensive and reactive approach adopted by the Minister this afternoon. I shall pass over his speech, except for a reference to the irradiation of food, which is a disturbing development.

In passing, I should say that I am sponsored by the Co-operative movement and thus represent the major food producer in this country. It has come out clearly against irradiation. I hope that other hon. Members who speak today will also declare their interests and tell us which of them are in the pockets of big business and which represent the interests of the farmers. People should not imagine for a moment that Conservative Members will not be speaking from prejudice or self-interest, just like the lap dogs in the Ministry who are in the pockets of the agricultural companies and of food production interests. Speaking of lap dogs, the Minister's parliamentary private secretary might be called the rottweiler of big business, although, come to think of it, rottweiler is not a good description of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).

We must examine the whole of food policy, not just parts of it. The Minister selected a few non-diseased trees from the wood and concentrated on them, but we must look at the whole picture—the production, distribution, processing and consumption of food, and its impact on our health.

First, let us examine the direct effects which cause illness. The Minister rightly touched on many of the worrying items. Salmonellosis is still the single largest cause of major food poisoning—at least of notified cases, if not of all cases seen in clinical practice. Other conditions are related to the consumption of milk—brucellosis, tuberculosis and campylobacter are all still major causes of ill health. I deprecate any attempt to retain the sale of unpasteurised milk in England and Wales. Such attempts are shameful. We have not had this problem for many years in Scotland and that is exemplified by the much lower incidence of these conditions there. I hope that the Minister will not listen to the more foolish among his hon. Friends—and among mine—who are trying to persuade him that people should be allowed to consume unpasteurised milk. There is compelling evidence that they should not. I know of no public health authority in this country or in any other that would recommend the drinking of unpasteurised milk, which affects not only the health of the individual consumer but can play a part in a chain of infection leading to the infection of innocent people.

There are other direct causes of illness—the contamination of food, the use of hormones in production, the over-use of antibiotics and the largely unknown and ill-defined effects that they may have on the quality of our food. I know that the Government and the EEC are closely examining additives, although perhaps not in as well co-ordinated a way as they might.

I do not blame only the Minister or this Government. This problem has gone on for a long time and is hardly new. The problem of food poisoning did not begin with the rather warped description of a diseased chicken by a former Under-Secretary of State for Health last year. A succession of Ministers and civil servants have failed to protect public health for a long time.

We must also look into the introduction of more sinister elements to the equation. Growth hormones are being used in meat production, not necessarily in this country, but in others from which meat may be imported to this country. The use of irradiation and of new processes such as cook-chill require close attention to detail. I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing a food Bill in the next Session of Parliament and I look forward with interest to reading it, but I still contend that it will not solve the major problem, which is that there is no co-ordinated food policy in this country. Until we have one, problems will continue to arise and need to be dealt with. I grant that some problems have been dealt with promptly, but they were unforeseen. We should look for problems before they arise and try to prevent them from occurring in the first place.

A bad diet indirectly affects people's health. I have mentioned that before and shall go on mentioning it until Ministers of whichever party happens to be in power listen. Bad diet has a sinister, persistent and all-pervasive effect on health. The fat and sugar content of such diets is still far too high. Bad diet can lead to diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer. We tend to forget that poverty leads to the inadequate consumption of calories and to an insufficiently balanced diet, and so to ill health. For all their denials, the Government have introduced poverty in full measure to this country over the past few years to an extent that we never thought possible in a civilised society.

From the vast range of problems that I have attempted to outline it must be clear that major improvements in health will only follow action to create a proper food policy which has as its primary objective the improvement of our national diet, not the protection of the interests and well-being of food producers. Confusion reigns at present. Many Ministries are involved—the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, which deals with aspects of the poverty 1 have mentioned, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, which ultimately controls what we are allowed to spend. The Minister, with his familiarity with that Department, is only too well aware of the problems that it can create for the best intentioned of schemes.

All these Departments have conflicting objectives and lack definition and the co-ordination of a common purpose. We have three choices: we can do nothing; we can examine the possibility of setting up a food Ministry —with all the difficulties that that would entail—in an attempt to co-ordinate the work of the different Departments; or we can follow the example that the Government set two years ago when alcohol problems became so manifest. They used the auspices of the Leader of the House to set up a ministerial committee to co-ordinate the efforts of different Departments. That has proved much more successful than I—somewhat sceptical of this type of approach—was at first prepared to admit. Such a committee might be a means of ensuring proper developments.

The Government's record is unsound and is best shown in two areas—first, in their attitude to poverty, of which I shall mention one specific example. Many young pregnant women cannot purchase an adequate diet because they have low incomes. This has been borne out time and again by observers and it is a problem that will not go away. It damages not only the woman's health but the future health of her child. The Government should look into this problem carefully.

The second aspect has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The Institute of Food Research in Bristol is a good example of this. The Minister did not mention it today; perhaps he merely overlooked it and the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it later. The Government are pursuing the mirage of near-market research. They believe that, merely because something will clearly benefit the public, it will be picked up by commercial organisations, which will perceive it as being of benefit to themselves.

I am anxious to correct the hon. Gentleman because in what appears to be his peroration he is going from one pinnacle to another without bothering to stop to consider a problem and to find proper solutions. In the last point to which he referred he was wrong, as he has been wrong all along. It is not a question of near-market research meaning that when something is of public benefit it will be taken up by commercial companies. The idea of near-market research is that when something is of commercial benefit companies will take it up and pay for that research. When it is for the public good and demonstrates no immediate, near commercial benefit, the Government will continue that research.

Unfortunately, what the Government define as near-market research and how companies define it are very different, as can be seen from the number of projects that are dropped by the Government and not taken up by the companies concerned, despite a clearly demonstrated value to public health. Companies are in business to make money, not to care for Members of this House and their constituents. The balance sheet at the end of the day is their objective, and that determines their activities, not any altruistic concern for the public health.

Even so, some companies, particularly the one with which I am involved—but also companies such as Marks and Spencer—have gone out of their way to develop sound practices in the handling of food. I accept that, but they have not gone out of their way to share them with any other companies because, obviously, to do so would not be to their commercial advantage.

Not only near-market research is important. The Government are also attempting to cut back on research which is seen by most people to be of limited value to the market but which is of vital importance to the future well-being of, for example, plant research in Britain. I refer to reports that the Government are cutting back on research at several plant stations, particularly at Wellsbourne, Rosemaun and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned, Brogdale.

Those stations, Brogdale in particular, contain genetic material which, if not kept, will be lost to the world for ever. This material stretches back to different varieties of fruit and vegetables for centuries, much of which has not been properly explored. Much of it could provide cross-breeding of different varieties of fruit and vegetables which could then be developed for consumption in this country and perhaps improve the quality and variety of food to which we are exposed.

It is shameful that the Government will not maintain research at those plants. The issue has been taken up by the scientific press, in particular recently by the New Scientist. Wellsbourne has been described by the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources in Rome as one of the most important temperate vegetable gene banks in the world. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is not simply a matter of my concern. It affects the public generally and it is regrettable that the organisation is not receiving the funds that it needs to keep going.

I have tried to demonstrate how, in a wide variety of areas, the Government have failed to act responsibly. They have failed to perceive that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts, particularly the few parts to which the Minister referred today. Until the Government accept that principle, we will not develop the type of food policy that our people deserve.

About 10 years ago I found myself with junior ministerial responsibility both for the food industry and for agricultural research. The then Agricultural Research Council was funded equally by the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I took the opportunity at that time of visiting many research institutes to look at their work. I am not a scientist, but as a practical farmer and having visited university and research institutions over the years, I feel practically qualified—I put it no higher than that—to make a judgment about the quality of work being done in, and of the scientists working at, those institutes 10 years ago.

I found that all was not well. Where the scientists were excellent—and there were many—they were grossly underpaid and were reluctant to stay in the employment of the ARC. They were leaving in large numbers to go to industry and into outside research. Where they were elderly and burnt-out, they were being feather-bedded into retirement by an organisation that was well capable of extracting funds from the Government, whether for basic or practical research.

I expressed my concern about that state of affairs over a lengthy period, and although hon. Members will appreciate that two years is too short a time to turn round such a vast ship as a research council, I am sure that those civil servants who were responsible in the Ministry had no doubt of my concern and displeasure. That subsequently was translated by my successor into a welcome change when the ARC became the AFRC, recognising the importance of food and reorganising the way in which it allocated funds for research.

During his time as a Minister and while visiting laboratories, did my hon. Friend discover much duplication of research? Did it occur to him that there might be possibilities of saving money because one job was being done in two or three different places?

That was the case. For example, the ARC ran two fruit research stations. Given the size of the industry, that did not seem necessary, but many matters of that type have been put right. I am referring to the situation 10 years ago. The recent changes in funding, in the first instance, and, more important, the approach of the AFRC in putting out much of its work to universities and outside institutes, as well as in supporting individuals in the work that they are doing, is to be welcomed, and I totally support the action that the Government have taken.

I hope that in dreaming up projects for near-market application, civil servants will not become too imaginative because there have been some examples where there is no possibility of industry being interested. That is where a common-sense approach must be taken.

The change is deeply traumatic to those who work in the institutes, and the frustration felt and the insecurity in general has frequently meant that many leading scientists in institutes have left, either leaving research altogether or going to work for private industry. When leading scientists leave an institute, that has a demoralising effect on others, and a damaging cycle begins.

Well-informed though they are in the AFRC, the news of closures and changes spreads rapidly. The morale of many employees has been poor for some time, and nowhere worse than at the food research institute at Langford in my constituency. I have always enjoyed excellent relations with the staff of the institute and I have been a visitor there on many occasions. Although forewarned for a considerable time, I was extremely sad to learn last week of the final decision by the AFRC to close the institute in its present form.

Few of the scientists will be offered jobs elsewhere. Some will be, and naturally I am worried about the local employees—the laboratory assistants and staff who work on the farms and in the abattoir—who will not be able to move. But I feel that I am insufficiently informed—as is the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr, Clark)—to tell the AFRC how to run its business.

That organisation is deliberately at arm's length from Government, and I therefore find the wording of the Opposition motion strange, since it is the responsibility of the AFRC, not of the Government, to administer its funds and to decide to which projects to put its work. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture funds its projects through the AFRC as an arm's length operation. I am not qualified to tell that body, in acting with taxpayers' money, how best to operate.

But I am keen to assist those who believe that they can save some of the specialist facilities at Langford. There is a unique opportunity for another organisation to take over the institute's facilities and building. I have in mind Bristol university, the veterinary school of which is world famous and which is also sited at Langford.

There is a possibility that with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture—I hope that the Minister will be in a position to comment positively on this matter—the Meat and Livestock Commission and the AFRC, some of the unique work carried out at the special facilities will be able to continue.

rose—

I shall not give way to the hon. Lady who last week made no attempt to offer me the most elementary courtesy before she raised in the House the matter of the institute, which is in my constituency. In view of the time, I shall continue.

The obvious merit in being able to carry out this special work is not only that it will continue, but will be conducted in a university atmosphere, which is right and proper. Furthermore, local employees may well be able to find work.

The Opposition's suggestion that there is to be a serious and total change in all food research is patently rubbish. While I accept that some work will cease, who are we as non-scientists and non-experts to decide on this allocation of funds? It is irritating to me that we appoint extremely expert people, indeed we have a fine chairman of the AFRC, but do not then leave them to decide how their funds should be allocated.

I strongly welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the irradiation of food. Much of the original checking of the safety of irradiation was done at Langford and I hope that the expertise will remain within the AFRC. One of our difficulties is that we are approached by scientists whose projects have been terminated and who, naturally, greatly resent that. They have been bound up in the work and believe it to be worthwhile. They resent a committee or outside body saying, "Sorry, it is no longer worth continuing with your research," or "You are not making sufficient progress." Therefore, we sometimes receive a distorted story.

Not however in one case, and I particularly want to mention one aspect of the work at Langford refrigeration. The House will know that the Low Temperature Research Station was originally set up in Cambridge but moved to Langford, and the expertise contained within that department is very special. I hope that there are plans for continuing work on this facility. If there are, the staff concerned are not aware of them. I hope that the Minister will look with particular care at this aspect. The suggestion that there is nothing further to learn on the subject is patently absurd, and I understand that such work is not being carried out elsewhere.

During the Select Committee's recent inquiry into salmonella in eggs it became clear that, although much is known about food poisoning, the subject is ever changing. The ability of bacteria to change and mutate needs constant vigilance. The dividing line between the responsibility of doctors at the Department of Health, the public health laboratory service and the vets is narrow. It would not be right for me to detain the House by repeating that argument, but those interested may find it worthwhile to study the Committee's report on the subject.

Ensuring the health and cleanliness of our livestock is an expensive business. The poultry industry is counting the cost of recently introduced measures to combat salmonella in eggs. That cost will, unquestionably, be passed on to the consumer. Nevertheless, I believe that the public will be willing to pay. However, it is absurd that other countries in which standards are appreciably lower than ours—this means all other countries because we now lead the world in this matter—can export to this country eggs from flocks which do not meet our health standards. The Government must insist on ending such unfair practices which discriminate against the United Kingdom's egg producers.

Despite all the problems of the past few months, the British public have never enjoyed a wider, more attractive and safer range of foodstuffs than are currently on sale. Some 66 per cent. of all our food is now bought from six main supermarket chains. We have only to see the efforts which they make to confirm the purity of their food to realise that the public is well protected, not just by officials or the Government but by extremely competitive retailers who rely on the quality of their produce to beat the competition down the road.

We shall never totally eliminate food poisoning, any more than disease. Recent events have unquestionably had a salutary effect on all involved, but in the long term we shall have had a most beneficial look at the subject, which must be in the interests of all consumers.

Much of what I said in this House on 21 February during the debate on food safety and water is relevant today. Despite the Government's attempt to dispel fears and to look as though they are taking action by announcing, for example, the appointment of the Food Safety Committee and the ban on bovine offals for human consumption, the fact remains that the Government's prime motivations behind their policy are profit, economic gain and a reduction in public spending.

The order of the day is a menu that is quicker, cheaper and more efficient. Without the ingredients to ensure quality and safety, it is a recipe for disaster. As I said in the previous debate:

"in our rush to progress and our haste to produce food more efficiently and profitably … certain people and industries have been allowed to cut corners. Consumers' rights have been neglected and the dangers to their health have become much more prevalent."—[Official Report, 21 February 1989; Vol. 147, c, 883.]

Incidences of food poisoning have risen dramatically since that debate. My sources claim that they were investigating at least one and a half times as many cases this spring as last spring. In the second week of May there were 240 reported cases of salmonella poisoning, and everyone is aware that the vast majority of cases of gastric enteritis go unreported. With the prospect of a long hot summer in front of us, as most of us hope, more concerted and organised actions are required from the Government.

At the moment, Government food policy appears to be in a shambles. For example, Ministers cannot make up their minds whether they should ban green top milk. One minute they say that they will and the next that they will not. I welcome the most recent decision that consumers will retain their right of choice to buy untreated milk and I hope that the Government will extend that right to bovine somatotropin-treated milk by bottling separately milk which has been treated with the genetically engineered hormone, and clearly labelling it as such.

New technologies in agriculture, food production and processing make it important for the Government to be aware of the repercussions on consumers' health and the environment in general. That requires research, quality and hygiene standards, regulations and monitoring services. Instead, the Government have decided to cut public spending on food research by as much as 27 per cent. by 1993–94 and to reduce their commitment to experimental husbandry farming.

The closure of the Institute of Food Research at Langford, near Bristol, is part and parcel of the Government's reorganisation of agricultural research and development. The withdrawal of funds for near-market research projects in the belief that the private sector will pick up the tab is naive in the extreme and an example of what blind faith in the market will do. The Government also ignore the fact that many projects cannot: be separated, and their attempts to identify near-market research, and to reduce or withdraw their funding, are having a devastating effect.

The Government's action is symptomatic of their entire policy towards research and development. Scientists are leaving Britain on an unprecedented scale. Only last week, a microbiologist involved in food research at one of our universities said to me:

"I do not see any way forward. Research is now seen as a source of income to the institute. If it is left to the private sector, the only research that is likely to be funded is that which follows the goals and objectives of the specific organisation providing the funds."

British industry is not well known for its investment in research and development, and many of the projects which are funded and founded involve pre-marketing research paid for by the sales and marketing departments. Needless to say, their guidelines are fairly stringent. This could be disastrous for the food safety aspect.

What guarantee is there that the findings will ever be published? I note that the large food chains such as Sainsbury's and Tesco's have refused to inform the consumer of the results of their massive testing programmes into chemical contamination of food. Sainsbury's justify this by saying that it considers the information to be confidential to itself and to its suppliers. Surely the consumer, who is the one most likely to be affected, has the right to know what this information is. I do not see why, if the retailer is doing a good job and is satisfied that the food being sold is safe, it should not want the consumer to know the results of the tests. The consumer has a right to know what pesticides are used on foods. There is a clear case for labelling to give such information—a factor that the Minister hardly mentioned.

The Government's stated objective is to roll back the state. I do not think they have achieved that. All that they have done is to concentrate power at the centre. However, another topic for debate—something that the Government must not forget and must remember in their pursuit of their objectives, whatever they are—is their responsibility to those whom they govern. The Government are responsible for the protection of public safety, which is threatened not only by outside factors, but by all sorts of other hazards. Where there is a threat to public safety or health that any action by the individual cannot remove, it is the Government's responsibility to find the cause and the means to eliminate the danger. The production of a glossy food hygiene booklet aimed at the housewife, at a cost of £750,000, as a response to the recent outbreaks of food poisoning is a poor effort by the Government to carry out their duty, and in many cases is an insult to the consumer.

The consumer, by using proper cooking methods, can kill whatever bacteria are present in the food, but we have to address the question of how the organism got into the food in the first place, and how to prevent it doing so in the future. Prevention can be achieved only through research, detection and control throughout the food chain. The Government must no longer rely on self regulation by the industry. When demands are moving and changing as fast as they are today, with fads coming and going and competition rife, the industry must not and cannot be expected to regulate itself to an extent that ensures safety in food production, processing and retailing. The Government must introduce more regulations and the means to enforce them. Parliamentary time for whatever legislation is necessary to enable sufficient regulation, monitoring and control to take place must be set aside. Self regulation is not the ideal way to ensure safety in food products.

More rather than less research is required. It is no good the Government trotting out statistics and numbers to back up claims that spending in this sector is higher than it ever has been before, because I do not care whether it is or not. I care about whether the amount being spent is adequate to meet health and safety needs. The answer is quite obviously no.

The Government must give food safety top priority. The decision, announced by the Minister today, to allow irradiated food to be sold in Britain without full knowledge of the long-term effects and without other back-up measures to protect the consumer is an example of other considerations having priority. If irradiation is to remain, then the Government should consider such moves as a ban on fractionalised dosage and the proper funding for environmental officers to inspect premises regularly.

I am also concerned about Government action on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. Can the Minister assure the House that the banning of cattle offal for human consumption and the move to have all cattle suspected of having BSE slaughtered and destroyed is adequate protection against all aspects of the disease and its human health implications? Can the Government say with confidence that the risk to humans from the disease is remote? Although I am told that the fundamental science on this has not been carried out, can the Minister say that the Government have done all in their power to prevent any such risks? I cannot believe that the Government are so satisfied with the standards of health and animal hygiene that they see their way clear to reducing the complement of veterinary surgeons in the public service. Are the Government content that the standards of hygiene in all abattoirs is safe and something of which we should be proud?

Is the Secretary of State for Health satisfied that the level of environmental officers in post, and even the establishment number, is adequate to do all the follow-up work that is required as a result of the recent outbreaks of food poisoning? Where is the follow-up work that should be done if we wish to ensure that lessons are learnt and mistakes not merely repeated? Does the Secretary of State believe that there are enough officers with enough power to deal with the expansion in the numbers of small manufacturers, retailers and caterers and the many other types of premises that they have to inspect?

The Government must now think in terms of prevention, which is one of the most cost-effective of measures. Food poisoning, other diseases and illness could be avoided with the proper foresight, organisation, co-operation and resources. The cost to the nation as a whole in terms of the costs to the Health Service, to social security and to industry from days off work could easily be avoided.

In the debate last February, I called for the lines of responsibility within and between various Government Departments to be clarified. When various Departments are involved, it is too easy to claim non-responsibility, too tempting to fight one's own corner and too difficult to co-ordinate objectives. Therefore, today I issue a challenge to the Prime Minister. When she reshuffles her Cabinet in the near future, she should set up a Ministry of Food to establish a mechanism to make and carry out a coherent policy on food, and to give the safety and interests of the consumer the utmost priority.

I must immediately declare an interest as a council member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I attended last week's meeting at which the decision to close the Bristol laboratory was taken. In saying that, I put myself forward neither as a lightning conductor for, nor as a clone of, Government policy. No one need think that the decision was taken lightly, or without consideration of the staff situation, which was sensitively touched on by the constituency Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

The Opposition motion rests on two fundamental misconceptions. The first and major one is a rehash of the old philosophical confusion about the belief that, because one event follows another, the first must cause the second. For instance, if one believes that night follows day, one ends up believing that day causes night. It is very much the same with food safety. It needs only some accident to happen—accidents in food safety can be extremely unpleasant, as the recent outbreak of botulism has been —and for there to be the coincidence of that accident with some development in agricultural research for the two to be inevitably put together by the Opposition. I am not quite sure of their view of the direct causation in this matter. For example, I am not sure whether last week was seen as a Government plot to infect their citizenry with botulism or as a plot by the bacillus to embarrass the Government on the eve of the European election. One way or the other, that is the way they see it.

We infected them, did we?

I did not say that.

Sometimes things go wrong with food safety. They have done in the past and they will do in the future. Our interest is in minimising their occurrence. Equally, decisions sometimes need to be taken in food policy and food research. It is inexusable to take those two coincidental happenings and to link them by a chain of causation which does not exist.

My second criticism of the Opposition motion is that for all their efforts, about which we read so much, to modernise and bring themselves up to date for the 1990s, they have not come to terms with the need for restructuring in the wider economy. We would not have made very much progress as a nation in the past 10 years, or even previously, if we had never had to make hard decisions to close a factory or to restructure a business. Anyone with an element of business experience appreciates the central importance of overhead costs. It is a matter of common sense that the number of sites on which an activity takes place, whether it be research or manufacturing, has a close bearing on the level of overhead costs—as, for example, my two district councils found when they consolidated their activities on one site. The larger the number of sites, the higher the overhead costs. That has been a major underlying theme in the decisions that the AFRC has taken to rationalise each of its institutes on one or two sites, and to modernise its operations.

I acknowledge the impact of the withdrawal of the MAFF contribution to near-market research. That could build up to a significant element in the total budget for the AFRC and the IFR during the next three years. However, I must stress that not all the work necessarily has to be done at the same location as the central science activities of the IFR. It need not all be carried out under the same organisation or funding umbrella. Much of it can go to other organisations, whether in the public or private sector. Insufficient attention has been paid to the tremendous increase in funding for AFRC institutes on contracts for the private sector. Much of the work might well be carried out elsewhere or under the funding of other bodies. An example of that is the important work on carcass quality—not that it need necessarily move from Langford—which could appropriately be funded by the industry.

On the public good aspect, I would cite the facilities for the welfare of animals at slaughter—a very sensitive issue —which are sited at Bristol. I understand that MAFF is prepared to continue with that as an item of public good, and so it should.

The result of making such difficult decisions will be a somewhat slimmed down IFR on two sites instead of the current three. The concentration will shift from the somewhat old-fashioned commodity-by-commodity approach, because modern developments have overtaken that, not just in technology but in consumer taste. For example, a TV dinner is not just meat. A number of different items have to be put together and cooked appropriately. With chicken Kiev, different indgredients are mixed, widening the range of consumer choice and taste.

A multi-disciplinary approach is required, looking at the basic science and applying it to all situations. The new institute will concentrate on the disciplines of central science underlying that—safety; the early, rapid and effective diagnosis of bacteria, nutrition, consumer acceptability, the avoidance of taint, and bio-technology.

As an example of the way in which that can be done under the new arrangements, Dr. Roberts and the appropriate members of his microbiology team at Bristol will be transferred to Reading. All the relevant work on food safety can and will continue. It is interesting to note that there were 40 MAFF-funded food safety projects within the research system last year, which is a high number. I have every confidence in the leadership of Professor Georgala at the IFR and a chance for a new, modern activity under the new structure.

This debate concentrates upon the more general aspects of food safety. If nothing else, the events surrounding egg production earlier this year have highlighted the problem, which in general is still growing. However, it is interesting to note that as a result of Government action the salmonella problem has now stabilised. With respect to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), the Government will have to consider a balance of a number of important issues such as consumer safety, consumer confidence and product innovation to meet consumer taste and choice. There is also a need to get the regulatory structure right, as I am confident the Government will do in their forthcoming food legislation.

I call on Ministers to bear three points in mind when preparing this autumn's work. First, they should work actively with their colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to ensure that the necessary funds are available for the full restructuring of the IFR. Secondly, they should ensure that the resources are adequate for the monitoring and regulation of food safety both at national and at environmental health officer level. Thirdly, the campaign for food safety should be applied at all levels so that all the gateways through which bacteria can get in are closed. One that has not been mentioned today, and about which I feel strongly, is food and hygiene training in restaurants.

The bugs that cause food poisoning—which are over, around and within us—are more varied and ingenious than we could ever imagine. We need to close all the possible pathways into the human food chain. Simple slogans and simple assumptions of priority will not work. To take the necessary action, we need the best possible structure for the basic science. I believe that the Government have acted to secure that structure.

Earlier in the debate the Minister would not give way on the question of irradiation of food. It is a pity that he has left the Chamber because he could have put me right. We were given assurances that any irradiated food would be labelled, but what will happen in cafés and restaurants? Will there be labelling on the menu or on the restaurant door? That will not happen. Irradiated food brought into this country will end up on the consumer's plate—

In the Strangers Dining Room.

I should be sorry if that happened as it is an excellent Dining Room.

The Government are deliberately misleading the public. If the Minister is prepared to say that irradiated restaurant food will be labelled, I will give way to him.

The silence is deafening.

The record will show that the Minister has refused to give that assurance.

The Government have shown a great deal of complacency today. During the past century consumers have never had a better chance of suffering from food poisoning. The choice is whether it should be from salmonella or campylobacter. The Government's food policy is unfit for human consumption.

I am glad that the problem of salmonella in eggs is improving. A letter from the British Poultry Federation today says that it has improved considerably since the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee can take credit for that, but the Government cannot take any credit because they have done nothing to stop the import of contaminated foreign eggs.

The Government's own chief officer of health said that the worst area in the European Community was Spain. Yet there is no ban on Spanish eggs coming into this country. Only last week, there was a positive test of salmonella in Dutch eggs. Why are the Government doing nothing about that? Those countries do not have our strict standards. They will now undercut us, the consumer will buy foreign eggs and our poultry industry, which has started to put its house in order, will suffer as a result of unfair competition.

Last year, there were 30,000 cases of food poisoning —or so the Government said. There is a question of reporting and whether the figure might be 10 per cent. or 100 per cent. higher. A further 30,000 reported cases of food poisoning did not go into the statistics—the cases of campylobacter which were recorded and blamed on food —so there were really 60,000 recorded cases of food poisoning last year. The problem is worse this year. June and July may be the strawberry season, but it is also the campylobacter season. There is an epidemic at present, which did not happen 10 years ago. Fortunately, it is rarely a fatal disease, but it is unpleasant, as anyone who has suffered from it will testify. What are the Government doing about food safety? The answer is that they are doing very little.

To take the fiasco of green-top milk, last January I asked in a written question whether the Minister intended to ban green-top milk. The answer was that there were no plans to do so. In February, the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) asked the same question and the reply was reported in the west Yorkshire evening press. I am sorry that the junior Agriculture Minister is not here.

The big one.