CLAUSE I.—(Payments to producers and boards in respect of quality milk.) (Hansard, 12 July 1939)

§ Mr. T. Smith
I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out "accredited milk, standard milk."
I move this in order to get from the Minister some indication as to what is meant by accredited milk and standard milk. As I understand it, it is a kind of low-grade milk which will qualify for subsidy. Is there any guarantee that it will be clean; and if not, why not?

§ Mr. Price
I want to put a question as to why accredited milk and standard milk are classified here as "quality milk"? Up till now premiums have been paid, largely out of funds found by the Milk Marketing Board by putting a levy on those who do not qualify. Those who have passed the standard test and have accredited milk of a low bacterial content are paid by those who have not. The passing of this test ought to be general, and I do not see why it is necessary that there should be a grant in this case. It should be possible for the Milk Marketing Board to finance the scheme by itself. We want to assist as far as possible in the improvement of milk and the increase of those who qualify as producers of accredited milk, but I am inclined to think that it would be better if some scheme were evolved for financing those who find it difficult to become accredited milk producers to do so. Tuberculin tested milk is a different thing altogether; and, so far as that is concerned, I am agreed that there should be a Government subsidy.

§ The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith)
The accredited milk producer, in order to get his licence, must satisfy the licensing authority, first, as to the general health of the milch cow, and, secondly, as to his arrangements for producing milk: as to the structure and cleanliness of the building and the cleanliness of the implements. For standard milk there are much the same conditions. The herds of accredited producers are subject also to periodical inspection, and the milk is subject to tests. A high standard is set as far as cleanliness is concerned—the same standard as tuberculin tested milk. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), our desire, and the desire of the Milk Board, is that we should get to a position where nothing below the standard of accredited milk shall be sold or liquid consumption; but we have first to do that by encouragement, by making it possible for those producers to go all out to increase the standard of their milk. There are certain things which producers have to do to get to the accredited standard. The Government think it better to try to get them to improve, and to hasten on the time when we can in fact get the proper milk supply that we all want.

§ Mr. T. Williams
While the Minister's explanation is very clear and understandable, I am not sure that this Committee is justified in providing an encouragement in this particular form. What the Minister says is that periodical inspection takes place on certain farms. The inspector must be satisfied as to the general health of the dairy herd—as distinct from any tuberculin test—and that the buildings are reasonably good and fairly clean. The health of the herd is fairly good, there has been a tuberculin test, and the buildings are reasonably clean and so on. It 2313 really ought to be incumbent upon the producer of milk to fulfil every one of those conditions without being bribed to do it. We are obliged here and there to encourage people to do what society demands they should do without any encouragement at all, but why we should provide a bribe for a farmer who merely keeps his cattle in a decent state of health and his buildings reasonably clean, I really do not know. He expects a high price for his milk, apart altogether from doing it, and I am not sure that we can justify this form of encouragement. It may be that the general health of the herd is fairly good but it may equally be that every head of cattle within that herd would react to a tuberculin test. If all the herd reacted to the tuberculin test, the premium would be paid. Is that not so?

§ Sir R. Dorman-Smith
Samples are taken.

§ Mr. Williams
Samples are taken, but what tests are applied for this particular category? In the table to the Schedule in page 15 of the Bill these words are recorded in respect of the milk for which the particular premium is paid: Accredited or Standard Milk which is not Tuberculin Tested or Certified Milk and is not milk from an attested herd. There the attested herd is something different from the accredited herd, and the accredited herd may react to the tuberculin test and get a premium. There is no guarantee that this really is pure, clean milk. I do not want to reduce the standard or quality of milk. Cleanliness of buildings apparently is a condition for the receiving of this premium. Hon. Members must know that there are thousands of farms in this country where the buildings are hopelessly out of date and wholly inefficient, and no inspector would pass them as being clean within the meaning of the statement made by the Minister a short time ago. I went to a farm in my division last Sunday week in order to look round the farm buildings, and to express an opinion, if I felt so disposed, as to what I thought of the buildings and the whole of the farm. I had not seen for a long time a more disgusting sight than those farm buildings. I went into the farmer's domestic premises and saw both the farmer and his wife. Everything was as 2314 clean as a new pin. Nothing was left to be desired in their home, but the farm buildings were in such a wretched condition that no inspector who did his duty could declare that the milk came within the category of being taken from cows housed in clean buildings.
Even if this Committee were to declare that it is right and proper to encourage farmers to produce clean milk and to keep their buildings as clean as possible, there are tens of thousands of farmers who, through no fault of their own, cannot fulfil these conditions. On the particular farm to which I have referred the landlord will not put the buildings into a decent state of repair. He will not give the tenant farmer written consent to spend a few hundred pounds upon putting the buildings into a decent state, and the producer therefore cannot qualify for this premium. His case can be multiplied by thousands all over the country.
My major point is that when milk passes through a certain test where it can be shown that the farmer has spent money on new buildings, new machinery and equipment, and has gone to the expense of producing a high grade quality of milk, the House of Commons is not only doing the right thing, but is wholly justified in lending encouragement in that direction. I have a letter here from a Welshman who knows something about the production of milk but I am not too sure what exactly lurks behind his mind, and perhaps the Minister will tell me when I quote from his letter. He declares that in certain areas in Wales their herds are absolutely tubercular free—not one of the cattle reacts to a tuberculin test—but because they do not come within one or other of the categories that are in the Schedule they do not qualify for a premium at all. That may seem somewhat astounding to the Minister or it may even be amusing, but there it is. He goes on to say: You have heard so much about Grade A and T.T. milk. Let me remind you that neither the Grade A producer nor the certified grade producer has reached the standard of a certain ordinary milk producer who has reached the record low amount of 200 bacteria. That being so, why spend money on these grades when the money could be utilised to better advantage in other directions? I do not quite know the background for this contention. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation was only 2315 partly satisfactory. In explaining the object of this Schedule to my hon. Friends I think he might have issued a word of warning to milk producers all over the country, and to landowners who have a duty and responsibility to their tenant farmers, that we want quality milk produced all over the country, and that where it reaches a high grade, Parliament is willing to provide a premium, but that where it qualifies only because the buildings are good and modern and up to date and clean, no premium is called for and no premium will be paid. We are encouraging milk production in the wrong direction, and I am not at all satisfied that Parliament is justified in paying a premium for these two particular categories.

§ Captain Heilgers
I feel that as I happen to be one of the accredited producers myself I should say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I would point out to him that it is not only a matter of buildings, but, as the Minister said, of a very rigorous inspection of all the cows four times a year. Any cow that is seriously affected with tuberculosis is bound to be spotted by the inspector. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only seriously affected."] Only the cows that are seriously affected are likely to give tubercular milk. We are not only inspected in that way, but we have a test four times a year and if we fail to pass the test we lose the grant. There is much more than that in it. We have to groom the cows until they shine like a new pin every time before they are milked. The cows have to be perfectly clean in every possible way, and in addition we have to sterilise all the utensils that are used for the milk, which is the most perfect way of killing germs. We are put to all the trouble of keeping extra men to clean the cows, to see that all the utensils are sterilised and to keep the cow-houses and buildings in a perfectly clean condition. It is not a question of our being bribed by the 1¼d. to undertake these precautions but rather it is a question of whether the 1¼d. is sufficient to cover the expense to which we are put. I should say that it is very doubtful whether it is sufficient.
I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite how we arrived at this stage of 2316 graded milk. I happened to be the chairman of the committee that dealt with the question in my county, so I have had some experience of it. It took years of agricultural education and clean milk competitions and so forth to make people alive to the need for clean milk. It was only when we had the whole county awakened to the need for clean milk that we were able to start the graded milk scheme, and the same applies to other counties as well. The hon. Member for Don Valley told us a story about a certain set of buildings which he said were in a disgusting condition. You will always find that sort of thing; there are always exceptions. There are bad landlords but there are also a great many good landlords.

§ Mr. MacLaren
No.

§ Captain Heilgers
Whatever applies in the division which the hon. Member represents does not apply in mine. We have done our best to provide the public with clean milk in the form of graded milk, and if there are landlords who will not put their buildings in order, I can only suggest that, by reason of the fact that we have encouraged the production of graded milk, we shall in time force those bad landlords to improve their buildings, because otherwise they will not be able to let their farms for milk production. I warmly support the proposal for a bonus to producers who are taking an enormous amount of trouble to provide a good, clean, pure milk supply for the public, and I hope that nothing will be done to discourage them.

§ Mr. Charles Brown
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) has clearly demonstrated to the Committee that there has been a large quantity of milk which at any rate is not fit for human consumption. He has pointed out the process which has to be gone through in order to make the milk fit for human consumption. There are still some of us in this Committee who believe that there is a good deal of milk offered for sale which is not fit for human consumption, if you apply certain tests to that milk.

§ Captain Heilgers
May I remind the hon. Member of the enormous fall there has been in the tuberculosis figures in this country in the course of the last 25 years?

§ Mr. Brown
That exactly proves my case and merely reinforces the point I am trying to make, that, if this process goes on to a further degree, we may hope greatly to reduce the figures of tuberculosis from what they are to-day.

§ Captain Heilgers
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he is not quite clear as to what I said. I said that in the last 25 years—the accredited milk has been going only for the last three or four years—there has been an enormous drop in tuberculosis, which means that the milk supply in this country, much of which the hon. Member says is unfit for human consumption, must have improved very much, because it was not accredited up to four years ago.

§ Mr. Brown
If the hon. and gallant Member cares to put it that way, well and good, but it does not affect the argument that I want to put. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has just said to me, in a Yorkshire phrase, that the Government are still subsidising mucky milk. I am inclined to agree with him. The expression is a very effective one, but it approximates in some cases to the truth. Sooner or later the Minister of Agriculture will have to lay down certain standards about cow-sheds. What may hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had in mind, and it has been confirmed by the hon. and gallant Member, was that cowsheds in some parts of the country are in a very bad condition, and in dealing with them there seems to be divided authority. I know of one case where the local sanitary inspector for the urban district council went round and examined some cow-sheds and asked that certain things should be done, so that they could be brought up to the required standard; but he was overruled by the county agricultural committee and its official. Therefore, there is divided authority as to what is required and desirable.
If we are to have a really clean milk supply, about which we are all agreed, then the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me when I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that sooner or later he must lay down very definite standards about cow-sheds, and see that they are enforced, but he will not be able to do that if there is to be divided authority and differences of opinion. I am certain that in many cases there is very 2318 great difference of opinion between the sanitary inspectors of rival authorities, particularly in regard to farm buildings. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

§ Colonel Clarke
The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) raised two or three points to which I should like to add. He was mentioning the extra cost involved to the farmer in producing accredited milk. There is the cost of the sterilising plant.

The Deputy-Chairman
I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that we are not discussing cost.

§ Colonel Clarke
I was only trying to make the point that the farmer is put to extra cost in producing this accredited milk, and that therefore there is justification in his being rewarded by the extra money he gets for producing the accredited milk. Would that be in order?

The Deputy-Chairman
That would be in order as an illustration.

§ Colonel Clarke
The farmer has to buy sterilising plant, which may cost £40 or £50. Milkers are scarce to-day and as a result of the extra work put upon the milkers in producing accredited milk they may threaten to leave, and that very often causes the farmer to raise their wages. If he is wise he pays them extra wages anyhow. Again, one-third of our farmers are owner-occupiers. Two hon. Members opposite, one of whom was the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) suggested that the landlord or the owner-occupier should have something to recompense him for money spent on buildings. One-third of the fanners being owner-occupiers they do get something.

§ Mr. Price
I did not quite mean that. I meant that there was a strong case for those who were not able to improve their buildings, and that the tenant should be allowed to have money advanced to him from the Milk Marketing Board, and that that should be a charge before the rent was paid.

§ Colonel Clarke
I am sorry if I did not quite express the hon. Member's view, but I think in this case they are getting something in respect of the money they have spent. They get the allowance of 1¼d. Lastly, in regard to 2319 the case which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raised about certain farm buildings. Did he see the lease? Was that farm let as a milk farm, or was it the case that it was originally let as an ordinary farm and the farmer subsequently went into milk and now he wanted a great deal of money to be spent on the farm?

§ Mr. Williams
The answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative.

§ Colonel Clarke
I would ask further, are they producing accredited milk now?

§ Mr. Williams
If the farm was producing accredited milk or tubercular attested milk he could not qualify for the premium because the buildings through which the cattle had to go would disqualify him from getting a premium or anything else.

§ Colonel Clarke
I think the farmer is entitled to get a little more money, considering the expense he is put to. I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "or entitled to the benefit."
I move the Amendment with a view to obtaining information. I should like to know whether the licence is granted to the person or to the farm. It is conceivable that I might be the owner of a licence, and I might therefore qualify for any one of these premiums, or I might not have acquired my licence and still might be entitled to a licence and to the benefit of the licence while I am on one particular farm. While I am qualified for the licence or qualified to be entitled to the benefit of the licence I might leave a perfectly clean farm and migrate to a farm such as the one I have described earlier, where no farmer in those circumstances could qualify for any of these three sets of premiums. I want to know whether the licence is to be granted to the person as such or to the farm as such, and whether that licence is transferable if the farmer moves from one farm to another.

§ Sir R. Dorman-Smith
As I understand the situation, the licence is granted to a 2320 person in connection with a farm, I do not think that you can get any licence unless the conditions with regard to buildings and other things are fulfilled. The licences in question are licences granted, under the Milk (Special Designations) Orders, made under the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act, 1922. So far as England is concerned these orders will, as from 1st October, 1939, have effect as if they were regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which repeals the 1922 Act. Section 97 of the Food and Drugs Act provides that: Where a person who holds a licence under this Act or any regulations there under dies, the licence shall, unless previously revoked or cancelled, enure for the benefit of his widow, or any other member of his family, until the expiration of two months, after his death, or until the expiration of such longer period as the licensing authority may allow. It is accordingly necessary to cover cases such as those for which Section 97 of the Food and Drugs Act provides, where there is a beneficiary of the licence who is not the holder of it, and it is for this purpose that the words, "or entitled to the benefit," are included.

§ Mr. Williams
After that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.