---

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Whatever we do at the major ports of entry there will always be opportunities at minor ports and on alternative routes. We must expand and extend our agreements with other countries so that we can deal with such forms of clandestine entry. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the problem that Ireland as a whole is experiencing with Greenland, as the immigration and nationality directorate has not yet put it on my radar screen.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): If, having opted in, as the Home Secretary described it, we discover that the arrangements are not quite as agreeable as we imagined, is there a way back, or is it just a one-way street?

Mr. Blunkett: To make the position clear, opting in is not a matter of all or nothing—we opt in to the parts of policy and the protocol that we like. The gist of the hon. Gentleman's question, however, was whether once we are in, we can get out. No, we cannot, without renegotiating that part of the work programme of the European Union. If, however, it were perceived to be bad for Britain in the first place we would not opt in. If that were the case, I imagine that other countries would be experiencing difficulties as well, and we would negotiate our way out of it. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] But that is true of every other agreement that we have reached since Britain joined the European Union, whether there was qualified majority voting or unanimity. Once people join something through a unanimous vote, they have great difficulty renegotiating their way out of it. There is nothing new about the arrangement, and nothing in our discussions that need concern people.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): How many holders of holiday and student visas switched to long-stay visas over the past year?

Mr. Blunkett: This is not immigration and nationality question time but, even so, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. However, as we spelled out at the beginning of April, we have tightened visa regimes dramatically, including those for students, and there has been a dramatic closure of bogus colleges, which were a cause for concern. That opportunity for clandestine entry and fraudulent residence has now been substantially diminished.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1303
 

 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1305
 

Prepared Foods (Provision of Information)

1.5 pm

Helen Southworth (Warrington, South): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require manufacturers and retailers of prepared foods to provide information about the content and nutritional quality of the foods

When deciding to take the legislative route it is important to be clear who would benefit and how, and what burden would be imposed by the requirement. These things have to be balanced to ensure that the benefits are significant and the requirements reasonable. We also need to consider whether a voluntary code would serve the objective better. Like many hon. Members and people in our constituencies, I am convinced that we must now take legislative action to make sure that clear information is available to consumers on the content and nutritional value of prepared foods.

What we eat has a huge effect on our health and well-being, and there is a clear connection between high consumption of some food items and a negative or positive health impact. In considering the need for my Bill, I have given particular consideration to the serious negative effect of high consumption of certain ingredients, particularly sugar, salt and fat. Diabetes is a serious, progressive long-term condition. About 1.8 million people are diagnosed with diabetes in the UK, and a further 1 million people remain undiagnosed. There are 250,000 people with type 1 diabetes, which is not linked to being overweight and requires insulin and tight control of blood sugar levels if sufferers are to maintain their health. Just over 1.5 million individuals have type 2 diabetes, which is three times more common in people who have gained about 10 kg in weight during adulthood than in people who have maintained the same weight. It is essential that those 1.8 million people—about three per cent. of the UK population—control the amount of sugar and carbohydrate that they eat. Good sugar control reduces complications, which are estimated to cost the NHS as much as 9 per cent. of its entire budget, or approximately £5.2 billion a year.

The cost to the individuals concerned and their families, however, is devastatingly high. Heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, blindness and amputation are caused by persistently raised levels of blood glucose, which damages nerves as well as large and small blood vessels. It does not have to be like that, as people with diabetes can manage their diet, control blood sugar and stay healthy. It is therefore not surprising that Diabetes UK wants mandatory nutritional labelling on all processed foods, including at the point of sale in fast-food restaurants and take-away outlets.

Diseases of the heart and circulatory system are the main cause of death in the UK, accounting for just under 238,000 deaths in 2002. The British Heart Foundation estimates that every year about 66,000 men under 75 and 26,000 women have a heart attack, and a total of 2,670,000 people in the UK have been directly affected. For coronary heart disease alone, it estimated that up to a third of all deaths are attributable to dietary factors. The cost to the UK economy has been put at £10 billion annually, but once again that sum pales into insignificance when compared with the cost to sufferers
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1306
 
and their families of disability and premature death. So it is not surprising that the National Heart Forum, an alliance of more than 45 organisations working to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease in the UK, says that nutritional labelling should be made mandatory on all processed foods.

Currently, 23 per cent. of men and over 25 per cent. of women are obese, and in addition 44 per cent. of men and 34 per cent. of women are overweight. The National Audit Office estimates that more than 30,000 deaths were attributable to obesity in 1998. That is equivalent to nine years of life lost for each person. The NAO calculates the cost of obesity to the NHS in 1998 to be at least £500 million and the costs to the wider economy to be more than £2 billion a year. But how can we price the value of those lost nine years of life to 30,000 people each year and their families?

It is no surprise that the Consumers Association's Which? says that nutrition labelling should be mandatory on all pre-packaged foods that have been processed in any way, or that an increasing number of consumer organisations are calling for nutritional information to be made available at point of sale in fast food restaurant, take-aways and other catering outlets. Sixty-four per cent. of people questioned for the Food Standards Agency 2003 consumer attitudes survey wanted nutritional information and details of ingredients to be available for the food they bought.

A huge number of people are affected by diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer and obesity. They want to be able to manage and survive their condition and lead normal lives. That matters a very great deal to the people we represent. We can make it possible for them to make the choices about their lives that they wish to make. Large numbers of people will gain considerable benefit from the ability to manage their diet, but there is currently only a voluntary arrangement for the food industry to provide nutritional information. Although the industry has had adequate time to organise provision of information, and the very creation of prepared food products requires detailed and standardised recipes and portion control, the information provided is highly variable, and in many cases no nutritional information is available at all.

Some retailers have demonstrated the willingness and ability to produce clear and easily accessible information. The Co-op group adopted the policy of labelling all Co-op brand foods with nutritional information in 1985. That includes energy, protein, carbohydrates, sugars, fat, saturates, fibre and sodium, and uses the coronary prevention group traffic light scheme to identify high, medium and low quantities for daily guidelines. Burger King also has clear and legible information for its product range printed on every tray liner, and Pret a Manger has full product nutritional information on its website, but far too many labels are at best inadequate and at worst misleading. Food labelled as 80 per cent. fat free may sound healthy, but in fact it contains 20 per cent. fat. A breakfast cereal marketed for healthy bones contains 40 per cent. sugar and must be eaten with milk for the claim to work.

For nutritional information to be useable it must be clear, easy to read, and compare like with like. As a minimum it should detail amounts of energy, protein, carbohydrates, sugar, fat, saturates, dietary fibre and sodium—the big eight of healthy eating. A full
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1307
 
ingredients list should be given for allergen identification and for people who have religious and ethical concerns. The lettering must be distinct from the background and be of a minimum size, and the terminology should be both easy for people to understand and standardised.

We must have simple, easy-to-read, comprehensive information for people who need it to manage their diet, because without it they are depending on guesswork and good luck. In May this year Which? released its "Recipe for Disaster" report, which exposes the wide variations in the amount of salt and fat among five of the most popular ready-made foods from different manufacturers. The findings show that consumers will eat three times as much fat, and nine times as much salt for the same sized portion, depending on which product they choose. One lasagne even contained 3 g of sodium per portion—more than the total daily guideline amount for men or women.

We are eating more prepared foods. Every high street has restaurants, fast food and catering outlets. Supermarkets are selling huge quantities of prepared meals and every local community has its own take-away. Children have prepared meals at school, workers eat in the works canteen and patients eat prepared food in hospitals. We are dependent on the content of all these meals for our health and well-being. To create prepared foods, the food industry uses standard recipes and standard portion sizes as an essential part of the manufacturing process. The information on content and portion size, and therefore on nutritional value, of every product is in the hands of the producer. It would be very easy to make it available to the consumer. The best producers and retailers are already providing quality information as a matter of routine. That raises the question of why other producers are not doing so, when consumer surveys consistently show that the vast majority of people want to know what they are eating.

My Bill is a simple measure with far-reaching benefits. It can be easily implemented. Most people want it and many people's health depends on it. There is no good reason not to do it, so we must make it happen. I commend the Bill to the House.

---