HC Deb 30 July 1914 vol 65 cc1666-73

Amendment of Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.

(2) The local authority in whose district the sample was taken may take or cause to be taken one or more samples of milk in course of transit or delivery from the seller or consignor.

Within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured from the purveyor he may serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours a sample of milk from the seller or consignor in the course of transit or delivery to the purveyor, unless a sample has been so taken since the sample was procured from the purveyor, or within twenty-four hours prior to the sample being procured from the purveyor, and where a purveyor has not served such notice as aforesaid, he shall not be entitled to plead a warranty as a defence in any such proceedings:

Provided that the purveyor shall not have any such right to require that such a sample shall be taken in cases where the milk from which the sample procured from the purveyor was taken was a mixture of milk obtained by the purveyor from more than one seller or consignor.

If a purveyor has served on the local authority such a notice as aforesaid, and the local authority have not procured a sample of milk from the seller or consignor in accordance with the foregoing provisions, no proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1G07, shall be taken against the purveyor in respect of the sample of milk procured from him.

(5) The local authority of the district in which the first-mentioned sample was taken may, instead of, or in addition to taking proceedings against the purveyor of milk, take proceedings against the seller or consignor.

(6) If a sample of milk of cows in any dairy is taken in course of transit or delivery from that dairy, the owner of the cows may, within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured, serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours a sample of milk from a corresponding milking of the cows, and the foregoing provisions shall apply accordingly:

Provided that the person taking the sample shall be empowered to take any such steps at the dairy as may be necessary to satisfy him that the sample is a fair sample of the milk of the cows when properly and fully milked.

Mr. BATHURST

I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the word "the" ["the seller or consigner"], and to insert instead thereof the word "such."

This is not only a verbal Amendment. There is some substance in it. I move it in order to make quite certain that the seller or consignor is the seller or consignor to whom reference is made in the preceding paragraph, and from whom the purveyor actually receives the milk. That is my object, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

indicated assent.

Question, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Word "such" there inserted.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (2), after the word "notice" ["he-may serve on the local authority a notice "], insert the words stating the name and address of the seller from whom he received the milk and the time and place of delivery to the purveyor by the seller or consignor of milk from a corresponding milking and. Leave out the words "procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours," and insert instead thereof the words "take immediate steps to procure as soon as practicable."

Mr. BATHURST

I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "from the seller or consignor" ["from the seller or consignor in the course of transit or delivery to the purveyor"].

This is merely a drafting Amendment in order to make the meaning perfectly clear. I propose to leave out these words at this point, and to insert them later so that the paragraph will read, "Within forty-eight hours after the sample of milk was procured from the purveyor he may serve on the local authority a notice requesting them to procure a sample of milk in the course of transit or delivery from the seller or consignor to the purveyor." If that is the intention, I would suggest that is the proper way to express it.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I agree that it is the better way.

Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Amendment made: In paragraph (2), after the word "delivery" ["in the course of transit or delivery to the purveyor"], insert the words "from the seller or consignor."

Mr. BATHURST

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (5), to insert the words (b) If the seller or consignor is not himself the owner of the cows he shall have the same rights as against such owner and be subject to the same obligations and disabilities as are hereinbefore contained as respects the purveyor of milk. These words, not the words of my Amendment, but the words "seller or consignor," are rather ambiguous, and until one actually comes to paragraph (6) it is not quite clear whether the expression is intended to apply at all to the owner of cattle. So far as I understand the machinery, it appears to contemplate the purveyor of milk—that is, the shopkeeper—being impeached for selling impure milk, and this is calling upon the local authority, in fairness to him, to intercept milk passing from the seller or consignor, which, in most cases, will mean the wholesale dealer, to himself. It may be that the seller or consignor is not the wholesale dealer or middleman, but is himself the owner of the cows. If that is so, surely the machinery, in order to be perfect, ought to enable a sample to be taken, not only between the middleman and the actual shopkeeper in the town, but also in transitu between the producer of the milk and the middleman! Take the other case which may conceivably occur, where milk is provided straight from the cattle owner to the salesman in the town. The machinery should apply in that case also. I want really to supply a link which appears to be lacking in the machinery of this Clause, so that no injustice may be done to the farmer, if he happens to be the seller or consignor, in tracing back the impurities of the milk to his own premises, and, if necessary, to his cattle, and not leaving him in the position to be charged possibly with milk impurities for which he is not responsible, but for which the middleman or the wholesale dealer is responsible when dealing, possibly unfairly or even fraudulently, with various milks in his possession and on his premises.

Mr. STANIER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The hon. Member's object, of course, is an excellent one, but I submit that it is already provided for in the Bill. He contemplates three persons, A, B, and C, through whose hands the milk passes. Somebody takes a sample from C, who is a purveyor of milk, and C says, "I want you to take a sample from B." The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that B shall be entitled to say, "I want a sample of milk taken from A." That is done. B is also a purveyor of milk within the meaning of the Bill, and the whole Schedule applies to B just as much as it does to C. If you were to add all the letters of the alphabet to the chain, the whole Schedule would apply to each one as a purveyor of milk, so that I am advised the Amendment is really quite unnecessary. The Schedule as it stands applies in the manner desired.

Mr. BATHURST

Is it not a fact that the ordinary interpretation of the word "purveyor" is a retailer?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

Is it not a fact that in the Definition Clause the expression "purveyor of milk" is said to include "a seller of milk, whether wholesale or by retail"?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

indicated assent.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I beg to move, in paragraph (6), to leave out the words "procure within a period not exceeding forty-eight hours," and to insert instead thereof the words "take immediate steps to procure as soon as practicable."

Sir J. SPEAR

I think this a very desirable alteration, but should it not also apply to the dairyman? He is expected within forty-eight hours to give notice, but it might be some time before he had noticed himself that a sample had been taken. Could the right hon. Gentleman alter the previous forty-eight hours in the same way. It might occur that a dairyman would not himself receive notice in time to give notice that he wanted another sample taken. Surely the same argument applies in the case of the cowkeeper as it does in the case of the local authority.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

He might delay giving notice until the occasion had really passed. He might extend it almost indefinitely. When you are dealing with local authorities you have some reliance that they will do the thing as speedily as may be, but, if you have an individual who is being proceeded against for adulteration, he may use every device the law allows him in order to put difficulties in the way of the procedure. I will consider the point again. I confess that my attention had not specially been drawn to it before, but I will consider it carefully, and, if there is any danger of a grievance and no danger of evasion of the law, I will do it.

Sir J. SPEAR

A deputation from the Essex Farmers' Union urged me particularly to press this on the right hon. Gentleman. Could he meet it by extending it to sixty hours instead of forty-eight hours?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I will consider that point.

Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Words, "take immediate steps to procure as soon as practicable," there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. BATHURST

I beg to move, in paragraph (6), after the word "simple" ["a sample of milk from a corresponding milking of the cows"], to insert the words "or samples." I move this Amendment formally.

Mr. STANIER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

This is much more than a formal Amendment, although it is only formally used. It is a very serious Amendment indeed. This is a provision which gives the owner of the cows the right to require the local authority to take a sample of milk from the cows, and the suggestion is that he should have the right of requiring—and the requirement must be obeyed—the local authority to take samples instead of a sample. That would give him the right of requiring them to take a sample from each cow. An obstructive farmer with a herd of 200 cows could make himself such a nuisance that no local authority would venture to take any action against him, no matter how great the suspicion, or how great the certainty might be, that he was really adulterating his milk. It really is not necessary. I do not think that it has ever been previously asked for, and I should be disposed to resist this Amendment.

Mr. COURTHOPE

I think there may be reasonable grounds for requiring that samples, rather than a sample, should be taken in the interest of the person liable to be accused.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Then it would be necessary to alter the words "from the corresponding milking."

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. BATHURST

I beg to move, in the last line of the Schedule, to leave out the words "and fully."

This is a case where a person, taking samples on behalf of the local authority, is given power to take any steps that he may deem to be necessary to satisfy himself that he has "a fair sample of the milk of the cows when properly and fully milked." He may decide that the cow is not fully milked unless the Strippings of the cow have been taken. On the other hand a cowkeeper may be in the habit of so milking his cows that the Strippings are not taken, and the result may be that the cow may be milked out to a greater extent on the occasion when the sampler visits the premises to the detriment of the milking on the following day. In other words, the standard may be either raised or lowered, because a particular sampler of the local authority may adopt a different system of milking to that usually practised on the farm. I am moving this on behalf of the Cheshire Dairy Farmers' Association, some of the leading members of which have expressed themselves strongly in favour of it.

Mr. CASSEL

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. SPEAR

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this proposal. Although I generally agree with my hon. Friend, I should say that apparently he has never been used to milking cows himself, because if you do not take out the Strippings the animal soon goes dry, and it is well understood that the last milk is by far the best and richest. To leave out the word "fully" would, it seems to me, be very much against the cowkeeper.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) did not give us his experiences in the methods of milking cows. I am advised by the Board of Agriculture that these words are really necessary and that a sample cannot be properly obtained unless the Strippings are taken, because they are the richest part of the milk. In such a case the cowkeeper might have a right to complain that the cows were not fully milked. The Amendment might also provide a loophole which would enable a farmer who desired to defeat the purposes of the Bill to escape from its meshes.