HC Deb 26 March 1929 vol 226 cc2387-96
Sir K. WOOD

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "cream," in line 2, to the word "or" in line 5 and to insert instead thereof the words by any person solely for his domestic purposes. This Amendment is moved to make it perfectly plain that in no circumstances is it intended to require private premises to be registered. In order to prevent the possibility of fraud such as I have indicated, one of the proposals in the Bill is that anybody who sells reconstituted cream shall be registered, but there is no desire on the part of the Government, or those who are supporting the Bill, that premises shall be registered where this particular substance is made entirely for private use.

Mr. ALEXANDER

This Amendment may be very desirable from the point of view of the Government, but I cannot help thinking that, as they have found it necessary to go so far, they might have gone a good deal further. From the reports of analysts, we know that it is easy to detect the difference between raw cream produced on the farm and reconstituted cream. Moreover, the first Clause requires that every receptacle used for the conveyance of reconstituted cream shall be clearly labelled. With those two facts in mind, it really seems unnecessary that there should be any special registration of these premises. It is also well that we should know exactly what will be covered by the term "domestic purposes" in connection with the process of making reconstituted cream. I would like to ask whether a small confectioner who possesses a small emulsifier and who wishes to make a little reconstituted cream for use in his confectionery or for his own private use, will came under this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

Obviously, this Clause is intended to deal with those persons who are selling this particular substance for profit. If a person is using this particular substance for his own private purposes and not selling it for profit, he would not come within this provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert the words (d) to the sale, exposure, or keeping for sale for consumption off the premises of pastry or confectionery or any article of food in the preparation of which re-constituted cream is used. The object of this Amendment is to secure that it shall not be necessary to register premises where reconstituted cream is manufactured solely for the purpose of being used for pastry and confectionery or for consumption on the premises. This Amendment would enable the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health who are responsible for the preservative regulations to do an act of justice to a trade which has been very severely handicapped by the regulations. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the extent to which the confectionery trade of the country has been damaged by the operation of the regulations. I have made considerable inquiries in the trade with which I am familiar, and one society which applied to me state that, before the regulations were put into force, they had a cream trade of between 70 to 80 gallons.

Sir K. WOOD

On a point of Order. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member is seeking to discuss the effect of certain preservative regulations. This Amendment simply raises the question as to whether certain articles of food which contain reconstituted cream come within this Clause, and therefore I contend that the hon. Member cannot discuss the beneficial effects of regulations which were issued some time ago.

Mr. SPEAKER

It appears to me that the hon. Member is discussing the effect which those preservatives might have on cream.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am arguing that it should not be necessary to register premises where reconstituted cream is being manufactured for use on the premises, and I submit that that is quite in order.

Sir K. WOOD

Further on the point of Order. This Amendment simply seeks to exempt from the provisions of the Clause certain articles of pastry or confectionery. It does not raise the question of what premises are or are not to be registered, but simply raises the question whether these particular articles are to be exempt from the provisions of the Measure. As I have already stated, the question whether or not these articles are included in this Measure is simply a legal question, and I submit that the question of the Preservatives in Food Regulations, which I am prepared fully to discuss at the proper time, does not come within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The Parliamentary Secretary has had experience in the legal profession, which I have not, but you will see, Mr. Speaker, that my Amendment is moved as an additional proviso to Clause 2, and the whole purpose of moving it is to avoid registration of the premises in which goods of this class are dealt with.

Mr. SPEAKER

If it is only a question of this Amendment having the effect of exempting those articles from the pro- visions of the Bill, I do not see that the question of preservatives comes in.

Mr. ALEXANDER

With great respect, I am not submitting that we should discuss the merits of the Preservatives Regulations; I am simply arguing, on behalf of people who have been hit by the Preservatives Regulations, that they should not be further handicapped by being required to have their premises registered. Therefore, I hope that you will allow me to proceed with my argument. The people whose business it is to make these various articles, in which cream has been a component part in the past, have found that, owing to the position created by the Preservatives Regulations, they are quite unable to make those articles. In order to do so they must have cream which will keep for from two to four days after it has been taken from the farm, and that is quite impossible under the present Regulations of the Ministry of Health. They have, therefore, as I find in response to my inquiries all over the country, turned to an increasing extent to the substitution of reconstituted cream for the purpose, and solely for the purpose, of manufacturing confectionery and other goods of that kind.

These people have been severely handicapped financially in their business by the working of the Preservatives Regulations, and, if they can now find a way out by using perfectly good farm products, like butter and dried milk, in place of the other commodity which it is not now possible for them to use, and if they do not sell that commodity as cream, but only use it in making up other commodities, why should not exemption for them from having their premises registered be included with the other exemptions from this requirement? That is the whole case, and I think that, if the Parliamentary Secretary looks at it carefully, he will see that it is quite a sound case. We do not ask that people who make reconstituted cream in order to sell it as cream should be exempted, but only people who are using it for confectionery and other similar purposes.

Mr. BROAD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

I do not propose to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the effect of the preservative regulations, for the reasons which I have stated. It may be that private enterprise is able to deal with those regulations, but that the co-operative societies are unable to surmount them. The trade generally have adapted themselves to the regulations, which have been made in the interest of the public, in order to get purer food. The hon. Member desires by this Amendment, quite rightly, to exempt from the provisions of the Measure the sale of pastry or confectionery in the preparation of which reconstituted cream is used. My answer to that is that there is no intention, nor is there any justification, for considering that such articles are in any way affected by the proposals in Clause 1. The whole of the matter deals with the subject of reconstituted cream alone. The hon. Member need not be under any misapprehension that this matter is affected by these proposals.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I still think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I am moving an extra proviso to Clause 2 to provide that the premises in which these things are made shall be exempt from registration. I am not disputing the point he is making that it is not intended to include these articles.

Sir K. WOOD

I quite appreciate that, and I know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—a right and proper object. Inasmuch as Clause 1 deals only with reconstituted cream, there is no ground, from the legal point of view, to apprehend that there is any necessity to make this exemption. That was fully dealt with in the Committee. I do not desire, however, that anyone should be adversely affected by the proposal who ought not to be, and I undertake, therefore, between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, again to consult the Attorney-General to see whether there is any possibility, which I do not believe for a moment, of anyone being affected in the way suggested by the Amendment, which I am, therefore, unable, at any rate to-night, to accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I beg to move in page 2, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (4).

I am sure that this Amendment will appeal to Members on all sides of the House. One of the traditions of the House has been to protect the liberty of the subject as far as possible. This Sub-section is not likely to commend itself to any lover of liberty: If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for supposing that any unregistered premises are being used for the manufacture of reconstituted cream contrary to the provisions of this section, he may grant a search warrant. I cannot for the life of me understand why, in view of the other stringent conditions in the Bill, and the ease with which you can detect whether reconstituted cream is being sold as farm cream or not, you should on top of all that, decide that anyone who is thought to have a little reconstituted cream in his house is to be in danger of the operation of a search warrant granted by any magistrate upon the swearing of an oath by a common informer. No one is going to be perfectly free from constant interruptions and irritations. I cannot imagine for a moment that the Government would have put such a Clause in the Bill if they had drafted it themselves. This is the sort of Clause usually found in Bills promoted by interested persons. I should say that it is because the Government have adopted at very short notice so ill-considered a Measure as this that they have allowed such a large encroachment on the liberty of the subject to remain as a standing Clause in the Bill. I am quite sure on reconsideration, and especially if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will consult the Home Secretary as to the effect of this Clause, that if he will not withdraw the Clause altogether, he will at least give us a very substantial Amendment.

Mr. BROAD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

I note that the hon. Gentleman described this Bill as an ill-considered Measure, and I have no doubt that that describes the attitude of himself and his friends towards this Bill. I would point out that this particular provision follows a very well-known precedent. There is a Section of the Public Health Act which makes a similar provision in respect of unsound food, and there is also a similar provision in the Foods and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, which authorises officers of the Ministry of Agriculture to enter any premises which he has reason to think ought to be registered, as butter and margarine factories. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to this procedure, and that when there is a likelihood of the law being evaded there should not be proper provision made enabling the officers to take such steps as are necessary to enforce the provisions of this Measure. I, therefore, ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. R. MORRISON

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain whether there is not an omission in this Sub-section? Surely the words should be "Justice of the Peace sitting in open Court." Under this provision it seems to be possible for anyone to go to the private house of a Justice of the Peace just as people do in order to get anti-vaccination papers and other documents signed. Apparently, as the Clause now stands, anyone can go to the private house of a Justice of the Peace and obtain a search warrant. It would be much more satisfactory if words were inserted to the effect that such a warrant could only be granted by a Justice of the Peace sitting on the bench.

Sir K. WOOD

That point has not occurred to me. I will look into it, and see if there is any necessity for further consideration, but I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's objection. I should have thought that a Justice of the Peace would have as much regard for his duties and to sworn statements made to him wherever he sat. Whether he sat in his library or whether he sat in open Court, I think he would have regard to his duties and responsibilities. I will see whether there is anything in the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ALEXANDER

I did not move one or two Amendments, in order to save time. Therefore, I think it is necessary to make a few explanations on the Third Reading of the Bill. To the general idea of this Bill, which is to let the consumer know where cream is offered as cream which is reconstituted cream, instead of ordinary farm cream, we have no objection. If tradesmen in general are offering for sale as cream something which is not cream direct from the farm, the public are entitled to know, and from that point of view the object of the Bill is perfectly good. There is, however, a grave difficulty which will be set up for the tradesmen who will not be offering cream for sale as cream but will be using, in the special trade circumstances to which I have referred, the reconstituted article to take the place of cream which they can no longer get in satisfactory quantities to keep for the length of time necessary for the manufacturing purposes in which they are engaged.

It is a matter of very great regret that whilst this Bill does something to make known to the consumer in general whether he is getting the reconstituted article made from farm products, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the public from believing that they are getting either direct or in restaurants, actual cream, when what they are getting is really much inferior in its constituents than is reconstituted cream. I have asked our own analyst to look into the matter, and he informs me that synthetic cream, which was covered in the draft Bill laid before this House last year, is something which can be manufactured not from farm products like butter and dried milk but can be made from almost any kind of edible fats, with the addition of a little milk. This Bill does nothing to protect the public against what is most injurious to them and what is, perhaps, the most fraudulent part of the trade which is carried on. They may go to any of the restaurants in the country to-day and may be in danger of getting commodities supplied as cream which are not cream at all. It is a matter of great regret to Members on this side of the House that whereas the Bill of last year would have protected the public against the use of synthetic cream, there is no such provision in this Bill.

I would point out to the agriculturists that it is of very great importance to the dairy interests in general that they should have an actual outlet for their surplus milk, and that one of the outlets to-day for that surplus is the very large manufacture of dried milk. They may think that in the Bill which is now passing into law something is being done to protect the particular business of the man who deals in raw cream, and I think they are, they may be doing the most serious injury to farmers who sell a large part of their surplus milk to factories for the purpose of its being turned into cheese or dried milk. They are getting now a large business which is helping the farmer in the manufacture of reconstituted cream, which is actually made from butter and dried milk. If people are selling reconstituted cream as cream, it ought to be made plain to the public what is reconstituted cream and what is raw cream; but we must not lose sight of the fact that in doing this we may be doing a very serious injury to some of the other parts of the dairy trade who have to rely for the disposal of their surplus milk upon the manufacture of the articles I have mentioned, as much as they rely upon the sale of their raw cream.

Sir K. WOOD

The hon. Member is singularly unfortunate in the statement he has just made. His attitude, as far as I understand it—I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are associated with him—is that he really does not like the Bill but is afraid to vote against it. He has based his opposition mainly on the ground that it does not apply to what is called synthetic cream. He says that he and his friends are of the opinion that it fails because it does not apply to that particular substance. But the particular substance known as synthetic cream is already provided for under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act. The sale of synthetic cream as "cream" would be an offence under that Act already and, therefore, there is no need for any provision in this Bill. Therefore, the only real matter which the hon. Member is able to bring forward in order to show his dislike and disapproval of these proposals rests upon a misapprehension as to the law of the land.

Mr. ALEXANDER

In that case the Parliamentary Secretary is criticising his own friends who last year drafted a Bill specifically providing against the adulteration of synthetic cream.

Sir K. WOOD

The hon. Member cannot get away by referring to anyone else. He must take the responsibility for the statements he has made and which are within the recollection of the House. With the large funds at the disposal of the societies with which he is connected I should have thought he would have been able to have obtained legal advice on such a matter before he made his speech. Then he says that he is afraid that under these proposals there will be no outlet for the surplus milk of this country. The Bill provides that the surplus milk of this country shall be used, but shall be used honestly. If milk is used in a particular way, to make what is known as reconstituted cream, it is only fair that the general public should know what they are receiving and paying for. The suggestion that this is in any way prejudicial to the outlet of surplus milk of this country is again entirely unfounded and beside the mark. All that this Measure seeks to do, and I think it is a valuable one from the point of view of the public and the agriculturist, is to provide that when people sell a substance known as reconstituted cream the public should know what they are having and what they are paying for. Hon. Members opposite, if they accept the view of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will divide against the Bill and we shall then know exactly where they stand.