§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said the Committee had been discussing a 724 question concerning the safety of the people. He now proposed to make a few observations affecting the health of the people. He was glad of the opportunity of bringing the question forward, because the President of the Board of Trade had taken a great interest in the administration of the Food Adulteration Acts. In 1899, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill which was now an Act of Parliament. The working of that Act, in many ways, had been most beneficial. It strengthened the hands of the Local Government Board, and gave them power to compel the Local authority to perform their part in the administration of the Act. The figures in the Report of the Local Government Board unmistakably confirmed what they said when the Act was passed, namely, that the surest way to get an efficient administration of the Acts was to insist upon the local authorities taking a great number of samples. The figures in the Report of the Local Government Board showed unmistakably that where activity was exercised in taking a considerable number of samples, there the percentage of adulteration diminished. In London one sample was taken for every 291 persons, whereas in the country only one sample was taken for every 536 persons. Therefore, there was still room for considerable improvement in forcing on the attention of the local authorities the extreme necessity of making their officers active and diligent in taking samples. That was the only possible way of reducing adulteration. Twenty years ago the number of samples taken was relatively small, and the percentage of adulteration was 16.2 per cent. Now the percentage has fallen to 8.8 per cent. In a general way, the Act was working beneficially, but there was still plenty of room for improvement. What he desired to call attention to particularly was the adulteration of milk in London, and he would offer the Committee only information from official sources. He would call the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to the Annual 725 Report of the Local Government Board. The Committee would remember that quite recently the Board of Agriculture set up a presumptive standard of purity for milk. Many thought that that standard was unduly low. It was not a high standard; and if the percentage of adulteration still remained high, it could not be alleged there was any difficulty in conforming to the standard. But in London, according to the Local Government Board Report, the adulteration of milk was simply rampant. The average percentage of adulteration in the twenty largest towns excluding London, was 8.3 per cent.; in the whole of the Metropolis it was 15.2. The adulteration consisted mainly in extracting the cream from the milk, in adding water, and, in many cases, preservatives. Everyone understood what an important article of food milk was, and how necessary it was in the interests of the consumer that the supply should be pure. How were the metropolitan boroughs administering the Act? In the City of London the percentage of adulteration found in the number of samples taken was 21 per cent.; in St. Pancras, 34 per cent.; in Shoreditch, 30 per cent.; and in Hackney about 36 per cent. He wished to show what could be done by the efficient administration of the Act. In Manchester, which was the second largest town in the Kingdom, the Act had been administered efficiently for several years. The Corporation of Manchester had been engaged for ten or twelve years in waging a campaign against the adulteration of milk, with the result that the percentage of adulteration was something about 3½ per cent., whereas in London, on the very threshold of the headquarters of the Local Government Board, it was over 15 per cent.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that action should be taken by the Board of Agriculture and not by the Local Government Board.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid that surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the Act gave joint power to the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture. If the right hon. Gentleman looked up the Act, he would find that his Department was conjointly responsible with the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture was introduced because some hon. Members had some doubts as to whether the Local Government Board alone would be the best body to enforce the Act. The present state of affairs in London should not be allowed to continue. The right hon. Gentleman had power to send his own inspectors around the Metropolitan area to see that the Act was properly carried out, and he ought to exercise that power. The right hon. Gentleman had stood before the House for many years as the friend of agriculture. He believed the right hon. Gentleman wished well to the agricultural industry; and he should take action in this matter. As the result of adulteration, the consumers of milk in London were paying £30,000 a year, in return for which they did not get milk but water. The right hon. Gentleman scarcely seemed to realise that he had those powers under the Act he himself passed. Inspectors should be specially appointed by the Local Government Board in order that the present serious adulteration of milk in London might be diminished. If the right hon. Gentleman followed the example of Manchester he would be doing a splendid work for London in eliminating, or at all events reducing, the existing adulteration. The 727 offenders should be prosecuted, and, if necessary, imprisoned. It was a great scandal that in the Metropolis, under the very eyes of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, such an amount of adulteration should be allowed to exist without any steps being taken to stamp the evil out. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him a satisfactory answer. He was, however, rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that his Department, together with the Board of Agriculture, was responsible for administering the Act.
§ *MR. PARTINGTON (Derbyshire, High Peak)said that the question of the medical charges for vaccination was brought forward last year, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering certain payments made in respect of vaccination. He should be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman had done anything to reduce those enormous charges. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that since the Act of 1898 came into force, vaccination fees and expenses in England went up something like 300 per cent. He thought the question ought to be taken in hand by the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members had received requests from the Board of Guardians to take the matter up. The Birkenhead Guardians paid £1,732 in vaccination fees, one doctor alone receiving £1,000. He did not know himself why private practitioners should not be allowed to vaccinate at the expense of the public as well as public vaccinators. He thought that would go a long way towards reducing expense. At present a public vaccinator never got less than 728 6s., whereas a private practitioner vaccinated his poorer patients very often for 2s. 6d. If the private practitioner were allowed to vaccinate as well as the public vaccinator it would save a vast amount of money. He also wished to know if it would be possible for the Local Government Board to supply all doctors with lymph. If there was to be vaccination, and if it was to be satisfactory, the very least the Local Government Board ought to do was to see that people were vaccinated with pure lymph. The right hon. Gentleman should see that Government lymph was supplied to anyone who required it. That would go a long way towards making vaccination more popular and safer. If the right hon. Gentleman would also agree to his suggestion that private practitioners should be allowed to vaccinate at the public expense, he would do away with a great part of the expense which had been incurred since the Act came into force.
§ MR. SOARESsaid he should like to add a few words to what his hon. friend had just said with regard to the supply of lymph by the Local Government Board. The law provided that every person should be vaccinated, unless, of course, he made a conscientious objection for himself or his children. The success of the operation of vaccination depended on the quality of the lymph; and as the State insisted on the operation being performed, the State ought to do everything in its power to secure the success of the operation. What was the present position? If a man desired to be vaccinated, he had three options—he could go to the public vaccinator 729 and be vaccinated at the public expense; he could go to the public vaccinator and pay for being vaccinated; or he could go to a private practitioner and pay him. But if he went to a private practitioner he had no means of being assured that he would be vaccinated with pure Government lymph. The same thing applied to public vaccinators, because when their supply of Government lymph ran out, they purchased a supply at the nearest possible place. He was speaking from personal experience on this question. When he was revaccinated last year he ascertained from his doctor that the lymph was obtained from France, with a guarantee from the vendors that it was a portion of other lymph which had been used successfully in vaccinating children in France. So that experiments had been made on poor children in France, in order that it might be successfully sold for vaccination in this country. If the vendors could be guilty of experiments of that kind their guarantee of the purity of the lymph was of little value. Yet this was the lymph used all over the West-end of London last year. He had no doubt that the majority of hon. Members had been revaccinated with that lymph. That was thoroughly unsatisfactory. All lymph should be supplied by a State Department in order to secure absolute purity. The lymph ought to be obtainable from the Government laboratories by every medical practitioner, and doctors should be under heavy penalties for vaccinating persons with any other than Government lymph. Another point was as to what became of the calves after being operated upon. Were they sold to the butcher, or to the farmer? He hoped to hear 730 that they were destroyed. He also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that little if any suffering was inflicted on the calves by the process of obtaining the lymph.
§ MR. SPEARasked the President of the Local Government Board if he would consider the advisability of giving Boards of Guardians power to appoint vaccination stations for revaccination in case of a threatened epidemic of small-pox. He agreed that the expense of carrying out the new Vaccination Act was very much greater than was anticipated owing to the general impression that the lymph supplied by the Local Government Board was superior to that obtained by private practitioners. He therefore supported the appeal that all lymph should be certified by the Local Government Board. The administration of the Act had been much more successful than some anticipated at the time, but it had been proved in practice that the scale of fees was higher than was absolutely necessary. Many people who would have been vaccinated by their private practitioners preferred to go to the public vaccinators, because they believed the lymph was superior. In his constituency a case of small-pox occurred among the prisoners, and caused alarm to the inhabitants in the district, who went to the public vaccinator to be revaccinated, with the result that a great burden was placed on the rates. If the Boards of Guardians had power to appoint stations for revaccination it would save much unnecessary expense.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)moved the reduction of the Vote by £100, in order that 731 the attention of the Committee might be concentrated on the question of the adulteration of milk. According to the Report of the Local Government Board, such adulteration was more prevalent in London than in the provinces. When the recent Bill was passing through Committee it was supposed that the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board would exercise a kind of dual control, the one looking after the interests of the producer, and the other guarding the interests of the consumer; but, as a matter of fact, the Board of Agriculture seemed to have left the matter to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board to the Board of Agriculture. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken advantage of the provision by which, if the local authority failed in its duty in this respect, the Local Government Board Inspectors were enabled to take samples of milk, and prosecute if necessary. It was very desirable that that should be done in London, as he had reason to believe there had been collusion in some cases between the Borough Council inspectors and the vendors. By steps being taken in this direction, adulteration had been practically stamped out in Manchester, and he believed that by the same power being exercised, a similar state of purity could be secured in London. In any case, it would be a great improvement if London were only brought up to the average of the rest of the country.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the President of the Board."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
732§ MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W. R., Keighley)thought that, as it was necessary the people should be sure they were getting a proper supply of lymph, the Government ought to undertake to provide all that was required. As to the adulteration of milk, he hoped something would be done for the country as well as for London, so that the children might have a good supply of that natural food. He noticed a large item in the Vote for the "Engineering Department"; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain what that was for. He would also suggest that more typewriting should be introduced into the Department, so as to do away with a large amount of the £3,000 taken for "copying." With reference to the equalisation of rates, that was a large question which could not at present be taken up, but one which ought to be dealt with. In consequence of better means of locomotion, large bodies of the working-classes gathered in particular districts, and the poor-rates fell more heavily on those districts than on others, and it was very desirable that some method should, if possible, be devised by which the rates were so equalised that all should bear their fair share of the burden.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid the engineering inspectors conducted all the inquiries which had to be held in connection with sanitary works, drainage and sewage schemes, the erection of workhouses and so forth, and there was not one more engaged than was absolutely necessary. They were constantly employed, and the branch was as hardly worked as any in the public service. As to copying and typewriting, he could not explain the exact division of the work, as it was obviously impossible for the Parliamentary head of such a Department 733 as the Local Government Board to decide how much should be done by copyists and how much by typists. During the past few years, however, there had been a large addition to the typewriting staff, and every year greater use was made of the typewriter and other mechanical devices by which labour was lessened and the work done more rapidly. With regard to vaccination, he had been at some pains to arrive at a satisfactory settlement as to the fees. He had been in communication with the medical men and the local authorities, but had not been able to arrive at a conclusion which would justify him in making an immediate alteration. He had thought it best to obtain a report from a small Departmental Committee, which he hoped would not be long over its work, and he would then decide definitely what should be the fees. As to the supply of lymph, that question had often been debated in the House. He could not hold out any hope of being able to supply lymph to private practitioners. It had to be remembered that public vaccinators obtained their lymph for primary vaccination free of charge, and during the recent epidemic of smallpox the Board were able to supply them not only with the lymph for primary vaccination, but also with a large proportion of that required for secondary vaccination. The demand that the lymph should be supplied also to the private practitioner was a very natural one, but he doubted whether it was really necessary. There was a Jenner Institute in London, which made arrangements for the supply of lymph quite as good in quality and character as that supplied by the Government. In addition to that, there were growing up over the country great laboratories in which all sorts of admirable scientific work was being 734 carried on, and in which, among other things, they were producing lymph which probably would be as good as anything the Government produced. There was also the lymph produced by ordinary mercantile firms. During the recent epidemic he made every inquiry to see whether there was any justification for the idea that this ordinary mercantile lymph was not of a thoroughly satisfactory character, but he failed to find any evidence that the majority of it could not be relied upon as being thoroughly satisfactory in all respects. To undertake to supply all medical men with a supply of lymph at a certain price would mean an entire change in the Government lymph establishment, and the ruin of the commercial people who had entered upon its manufacture as a part of their business. Moreover, it was quite conceivable that at times of great pressure the Government Department would not be able to supply all the lymph required, and the result would be a breakdown. By a recent scientific discovery, which was not yet fully developed, it might be made possible to produce lymph which would not have to be destroyed if kept beyond a certain time, but at present the real difficulty with which they had to contend was the fact that lymph could not be produced during the slack time and put in reserve for use when the pressure came. Sterilised lymph could not be kept for more than a certain time, so that it was impossible to accumulate reserve for use in time of an epidemic, consequently it would be incurring a great risk to undertake to supply all private practitioners in the country. He quite realised the force of the demand, and he was not making this statement without having carefully considered and discussed the question, not only with his 735 own medical advisers, but also with distinguished medical men outside the Department. Among those who were best qualified to judge, it was agreed that it was better to continue the present system than to put the whole supply of lymph into the hands of the Government. So far as he knew, the manufacture of lymph had been under the control and supervision of a medical man, and they ran no risk of any kind whatever. In regard to the calves, the medical man bought and disposed of them, and he did not know what became of them. He did not, however, think that the calves were any worse for the operation they had been under. With regard to the administration of the Adulteration Acts, nothing would be more prejudicial than to let the local authorities believe that the Local Government Board were willing to do their work for them and bear the expense. When the local authority did not do its work as well as it ought, the Department immediately pressed on them the importance of taking samples and vigorously applying the Act of 1899. That Act had not been long on the Statute-book, but it had already produced good results, and as far as he was responsible for the administration of the Local Government Board, he should be careful that the local authorities were constantly reminded of and kept up to their duties.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid he had specially alluded to the adulteration of milk in London, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had only given them a general assurance that he would remind the local authorities of their duty in this matter. That was hardly sufficient, and he wished to know if the President of the 736 Local Government Board would undertake to see that the Adulteration Acts were enforced in London, especially in regard to the adulteration of milk.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had distinctly stated that to do the work of the London County Council or London Borough Councils by Government agency, at Government cost, would be the very worst thing in the interests of the Adulteration Acts. There had undoubtedly been a want of activity in London, and his business was to urge the municipal authorities in London to do their work properly and at their own cost. He should do in the future what he had done hitherto, that was to press upon the local authorities that it was their duty to carry out the law.
MR. PHILIPPS (Pembrokeshire)thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was not at all satisfactory, for he had simply promised that when the local authorities did not do their work properly in regard to the Adulteration Acts he would put a little pressure upon them. The hon. Member for Devonport had shown conclusively that the local authorities in London were not doing their duty. It was admitted that in Manchester the percentage of adulteration was only 3½ per cent., while in London it was 15 per cent., and in the City of London 21 per cent. He thought his hon. friend was entitled to ask what the Department had done in the case of the City of London. Then there was the case of Hackney where, out of 305 samples taken, 112 were found to be adulterated. Was that not sufficient to demand the interference of the Local Government Board? No less than 36 per 737 cent of the samples of milk taken in Hackney were found to be adulterated. They had had a good deal of discussion about the physique of the people of this country deteriorating, and considering the number of children who had to drink milk, and the fact that in London no less than 15 per cent. of the samples taken had been found to be adulterated, he wished to know if anything could be more serious than that state of things in the Metropolis. This condition of things was not adequately met by saying that when there was a bad case they could rely upon the right hon. Gentleman doing something. Had the President of the Local Government Board done anything in this matter in the City of London or in the Borough of Hackney, and if not, why not? As the representative of an agricultural constituency this question of the adulteration of milk was of great importance to the people whom he represented. The selling of milk and water for milk was something from which the farmer and the people were entitled to be protected. He felt justified in speaking somewhat strongly on this question because he remembered the hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for Somerset sat upon the Committee when the Adulteration Acts were passed, and they were very prominent in their endeavours to improve the Acts upon this point. Bearing that fact in mind he thought his hon. friends were entitled to press upon the Government that they should use every power they had to the utmost, when it was shown that the adulteration of milk in
§ London amounted to no less than 15 per cent.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's defence was very lame. It was clear that he did not realise the responsibility of his Department. If these Adulteration Acts were to be carried out effectively the local authorities must be compelled to work them; and that duty was thrown on the Local Government Board by the Act of 1899. The right hon. Gentleman had not done this, and he had simply stated that it would be better for him not to interfere with the work of the London County Council and the Borough Councils. He should continue to press this matter upon the attention of the Department. He had quoted the case of Manchester, where by a persistent campaign against milk adulteration they had reduced adulteration to 3½ per cent. If that was possible in Manchester surely it was possible in London. The adulteration of milk in Hackney amounted to 36 per cent., and in other London Boroughs to over 30 per cent., and the only satisfaction they got was a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that it was practically unreasonable for him to step in and do the work of the Borough Councils. He hoped that after what had been said in this debate the right hon. Gentleman would give some attention to this matter.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 35; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 117.)
739| AYES. | ||
| Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joicey, Sir James |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud | Cullinan, J. | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) |
| Brigg, John | Doogan, P. C. | Joyce, Michael |
| Caldwell,) James | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lundon, W. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Helme, Norval Watson | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Horniman, Frederick John | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj. | Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Murphy, John | Shackleton, David James | Toulmin, George |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Soares, Ernest J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) | Sir Edward Strachey and |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower) | Mr. Kearley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Purvis, Robert |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Atkinson, Right Hon. John | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Renwick, George |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fisher, William Hayes | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r | Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Fyler, John Arthur | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Bignold, Arthur | Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bond, Edward | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Lincs. | Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight |
| Bull, William James | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Butcher, John George | Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Horner, Frederick William | Spear, John Ward |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Keswick, William | Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Stroyan, John |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. Ox'd Univ. |
| Collings, Right Hon. Jesse | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M. |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Maxwell, W. JH. (Dumfriessh.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge | Morrison, James Archibald | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Murray, RtHnA.Graham (Bute | |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Percy, Earl | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Pretyman, Ernest George |
Question put, and agreed to
§ And it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.