WOOD GREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (BY ORDER). (Hansard, 4 August 1903)

§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)
said he moved to disagree to the Lords' Amendment moved to this Bill, and he did it purely and simply because of his position as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was sent. He objected to the Amendment 1524 because, in the first place, it altered the form of a clause which had now been settled for some time and had become a precedent, and in the second place, because of the time and manner in which this alteration had been suggested, and in the third place he objected to it on point of substance, because he thought it was not desirable. As the Bill came before the Police and Sanitary Committee it contained a clause in a form now settled for many years past, and which, as it stood, authorised the medical officer of health, with a view to the purity of the milk supply, to take samples of milk for examination. The milk might also be examined outside the district of the authority if an order of the magistrate had been previously obtained. The Lords' Amendment proposed to limit that clause by the proviso that nothing in the section should apply to milk in the possession of any railway company until its arrival at the station of destination. The form of the original clause was settled four or five years ago after a great amount of cogitation, consultation, and association with the Local Government Board and the County Councils' Association, representing the producers of milk, and the clause in its present form had been granted time after time in Bills brought before the Police and Sanitary Committee during the past four or five sessions. He submitted that the precedent established for the last four years ought not now to be upset. This point, so far as he knew, had never been raised before. Sixteen Bills had been brought before the Police and Sanitary Committee this session, and on fourteen of those Bills which contained this clause railways appeared by counsel, yet in not one of those cases was the point raised by this Amendment, namely, that the railway company found any hardship in the clause in the form in which it was passed for so long, then raised. If there 1525 had been any hardship in it the point would have been raised long ago. The suggestion of the railway company in this instance was that they might be damaged if it was in the power of an inspector of the medical officer of health to take samples in transitu. He thought it might be safely assumed that the inspectors would act with moderation and good sense and would not hang up the traffic on a railway line while they took samples of milk from the trucks. He submitted that this Amendment ought not to be allowed unless they had some evidence that the clause had failed in its original form. This section was usually introduced into such Bills, and the limitation of a clause thus sanctioned by precedent had not been considered or discussed by the Lords, but had been introduced by consent of the local authority because their Bill would otherwise have been opposed by a railway company.

§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said he hoped the House would not disagree with the Lords' Amendment in this case. The real facts were that the Wood Green Urban District Council had obtained powers to sample milk in vanson railways, and the Great Northern Railway having had its attention called to the fact approached Lord Ribblesdale, and subsequently Lord Morley, and pointed out that they would be glad to give any assistance to the inspectors who were desirous of finding out whether milk had been adulterated, but while they were willing to give every facility to examine the milk on their platforms and in their stations they thought that in the interest of the public it would not be desirable to allow inspectors to stop milk expresses at Finsbury Park and other stations and thus cause delay, which was not in the interests of the public. The railway company would be glad to give every facility for the examination of milk, not only on its arrival at its station of destination, but also on the platform of the station of its departure, but they did not see why trains should be stopped at Wood Green 1526 or other stations while the inspector went into the milk van and took samples of milk. He thought also to advance the argument that because a clause was settled four years ago that that was a reason for appealing to the House of Commons for its being continued could not hold water. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said that London had the worst reputation of any city in the kingdom for adulterated milk. In some districts the adulteration was as high as 35 and 40 per cent. He therefore supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham. This power to examine milk in transit dealt a most effective blow at adulteration. It was given in many Bills, and had not been objected to by the railway companies.

* THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)
hoped the hon. Member for Peckham would not press his objection to the Motion. On the merits, however, he agreed with the hon. Baronet, because he could not imagine anything more objectionable and absurd than the examination of the milk on board the milk train with an express behind it. But this provision had been inserted in sixteen Bills in this session and in a great number in past sessions. Public attention having been called to the matter, he thought it was obvious that in any Bill of this character railway companies would take good care to bring their case before the Police and Sanitary Committee, and he had no doubt that due weight would be given to all the arguments brought forward on behalf of the railway companies. He thought it was undesirable to alter the model clause in this case, and for that reason he urged that it should be allowed to remain in the state in which it left this House.