SCHEDULE.—(Payments in Respect of Quality Milk.) (Hansard, 12 July 1939)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn)
I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out line 19.
This Amendment and the following one—In page 15, line 20, column 1, after "Tested," to insert "or Certified"— relate to the sale of Certified milk. Last year the main Scottish Board informed us that they were going to pay, out of their own funds, an additional premium of ⅛d. a gallon on Certified milk sold as Certified milk, over and above the ordinary T.T. premium. Certified milk producers usually have a surplus which is not sold as Certified milk, but is sold as T.T. milk at the ordinary T.T. price and with the ordinary premium. The line in the Schedule which we propose to leave out was put in in order to give statutory recognition to what the main Scottish Board have been doing, but we find a difficulty in Sub-section (4) (c) of Clause 1 which provides that: Milk shall be deemed to be accredited milk, standard milk, tuberculin tested milk, or certified milk, if, and only if, when the milk was sold or, as the case may be, used, the producer thereof was the holder, or entitled to the benefit, of a licence … authorising him to use the special designation 'accredited,' 'standard' 'tuberculin tested' or 'certified'. If the Schedule were left as it is, it would mean that the Board would be legally obliged to pay this ⅛ d. on all milk produced by certified producers, and that was never contemplated. The Amendment would relieve them of that obligation. But it will still be possible for them to continue to pay out of their own funds the additional ⅛d. on Certified milk sold 2352 as Certified milk, and the Board have informed us that it is their intention to continue these payments.

Mr. Alexander
I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, column 3, to leave out "⅝," and to insert "½."
We want some explanation from the Minister about certain differences which appear to us to exist in the Schedule. Reading carefully the very important language in the earlier paragraphs, we can deduce fairly clearly that Table I relates to milk sold by wholesalers, and Table II to milk sold by retailers. I understand from the Minister that that is correct. If we take the third sub-paragraph in each of these two tables, we find the following difference. In the case of milk sold wholesale, milk from an attested herd which is not accredited, standard, tuberculin tested or certified milk receives a subsidy of Id. per gallon from the Milk Board, in respect of which the Government Exchequer contribution will be ½d. In the case of milk sold by retail—and in this case, therefore, it must be by the producer-retailer—accredited or standard milk which is not tuberculin tested or certified milk and is not milk from an attested herd, receives the same subsidy from the board, namely, id. per gallon, but the Government pays ⅝d. Why?
A great deal has happened during the last two or three years in the gradual expansion of favours to the producer-retailer section of the industry, and the extent to which they have been relieved of levies has made a fairly substantial difference to the finance of the scheme and of the pool. Possibly it may be assumed that the intention of the Government is to recoup the Milk Board to some extent for the reduction in the levies which they have charged to the producer-retailers. This section of the industry, which already has the opportunity, in the turnover both on the production and on the sale of the commodity, to make a double profit, and has been relieved of a large part of the levy, as distinguished from producers for wholesale distribution, is now to have this subsidy.

§ Sir R. Dorman-Smith
I think the right hon. Gentleman is comparing the third category in Table I with the third category in Table II, but actually the accredited or standard milk in Table II should be taken with the accredited or standard milk in Table I, and this latter is the second category in Table I.

Mr. Alexander
Perhaps the Minister can give us a little more explanation of the working of the thing. In Table I, which deals with milk sold wholesale, we have the words: Milk from an attested herd which is not Accredited, Standard, Tuberculin Tested or Certified Milk. That category gets ½d. from the Exchequer. In Table II we have: Accredited or Standard Milk which is not Tuberculin Tested or Certified Milk and is not milk from an attested herd. That gets a higher rate of contribution from the Government. At any rate, that is how it looks on the face of it. In the second paragraph of Table I we have: Accredited or Standard Milk which is not Tuberculin Tested or Certified Milk and is not milk from an attested herd. That gets 1¼d. a gallon from the board, and the Minister suggests that we ought to compare that with the third category in Table II. If the argument of the Government is that these two categories are in all respects similar, that would be an answer to the Amendment, but I should like to know what is the explanation of the differential subsidy.

§ Mr. J. Morgan
The Minister has drawn our attention to the fact that the final paragraph should be related to the second paragraph in the first table, where the figure is 1¼d. But in the second column the figure is ¾d., whereas that below it is ⅝d. Why is there this difference?

§ Sir R. Dorman-Smith
Really the wholesaler and the retailer are being treated in exactly the same way by the Exchequer, and what the Exchequer is going to do is to pay half the old premium and the whole of the new premium. The producer-retailers' contributions towards the board arc worked out in a different way from those of the wholesalers. That is where the discrepancy arises. Before this came into operation, the board was paying Id. a gallon in the case of producers selling wholesale, and ¼d. a gallon in the 2354 case of producers selling retail. The retailer gets ¼d. plus ⅜d., which is⅝d.; and the wholesaler gets ¼d. plus ½d., which makes ¾d.

§ Mr. T. Williams
Earlier on we argued that there were low-grade milks receiving premiums which we thought they ought not to receive. Line 15 says: Milk from an attested herd which is not Accredited, Standard, Tuberculin Tested or Certified Milk. These get a subsidy from the Treasury if sold wholesale. I have never heard any explanation why low-grade milk should get any subsidy at all.

Mr. Alexander
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has pointed out that, under this, we are to pay a subsidy for milk from attested herds, although the milk does not reach certain specified qualities. In the case of milk sold retail, there is no such wording as is found in the wholesale table. The hon. Member for Don Valley wants to know the reason for that difference. Before the Minister replies, I must say that I very much regret that I was not able to be here to support my hon. Friend on the first Amendment that was moved to-day. We are asking the taxpayers to subsidise milk of a standard which every producer ought to attain without any help at all, because it would be his duty to maintain that standard if licensed to sell milk to the public. It is unreasonable that the taxpayer should be called upon to provide a subsidy for what ought to be the ordinary standard of cleanliness.

§ Dr. Edith Summerskill
I feel that the most undesirable feature of the Bill is the fact that the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise milk which is neither clean nor pure nor safe. The object of the Bill, outlined in the Preamble—

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member must not discuss a matter which has been discussed already on the first Amendment to-day.

§ Mr. T. Williams
Is my hon. Friend not entitled to raise a question which 2355 comes under the Schedule, on the Motion "That this be the Schedule to the Bill"? It is true that an earlier Amendment dealt with the words "accredited milk, standard milk." My hon. Friend is now directing the attention of the Committee to milk from an attested herd which is not accredited, standard, tuberculin tested or certified. Is she not entitled to do that?

The Deputy-Chairman
That is quite correct. My impression was that the hon. Member was making a general indictment against the Bill.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I will confine myself to the Schedule. In the Schedule the words "quality milk" occur. I think that conveys the idea to the general public and to the Committee of milk that is safe and clean. Here we are asked to subsidise accredited and standard milk which is not safe, and which is, in fact, a danger to the community. The Minister told us that this was a temporary Measure, but even in a temporary Measure he should concern himself particularly with the kinds of milk which are described in the Schedule. Accredited and standard milk are not safe.

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is going outside the Schedule. We are discussing the allocation of money to be contributed by the Treasury.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am suggesting that we should not give one penny to the producers of this kind of milk. If I confine myself to that, and tell the Committee why we should not, surely I am in order. In this country 40 per cent, of the cows have tuberculosis, and these are the cows which are producing accredited and standard milk. I want to remind the Minister that every year 2,000 children die as the result of infection from milk which is called accredited and standard milk, and that three-quarters of the cases of Cervical Glands and three-fifths of the cases of infected bone in children are due to infected milk. Yet the Minister has the temerity to tell us that he is going to subsidise this milk, which is a danger to the community. Because it is called graded and standard milk—I am sure that I am keeping within the Schedule, Colonel Clifton Brown—the farmers and producers are to be subsidised. I suggest to the Minister that nobody in this country should profit by producing milk of this kind, and I ask him to reconsider the Schedule.

§ Mr. Brooke
This Schedule fixes the premiums that are to be offered and paid to the producers of quality milk in order to encourage the production of such milk. The premium on tuberculin-tested or certified milk is to be 2¼d. per gallon, but the premium enjoyed by tuberculin-tested milk in the retail market on sale to the public is 1s. a gallon, and on certified milk is. 8d. per gallon, I do not think that the problem of stimulating the production of quality milks can be solved solely by an adjustment of the premium which the producer is to enjoy, quite apart from the natural demand that ought to be created all the time by a reasonable price asked of the consumer for these milks. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) suggested, and I think it was accepted by Members in all parts of the Committee, that we all fundamentally in our milk policy want to find the correct solution—

The Deputy-Chairman
The question of the correct solution of milk policy does not come under this Schedule, which is limited to the way money may be contributed.

§ Mr. Brooke
I beg your pardon, Colonel Clifton Brown. I am sure that I was in the wrong, but if I may proceed to the end of my sentence, I was going to say that a great opportunity is being missed by failing to control the production of milk through the fixing of these premiums. If the producer of non-graded milk was made to meet the premium that is to be received—

The Deputy-Chairman
That would be a very good argument to use on Second Reading, but not on the Schedule, which lays down certain details which are not principles. It would also be a very useful argument on the Third Reading, but the hon. Member is going outside the scope of the Schedule.

§ Mr. Brooke
I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown. I had not the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading, but I shall be glad to speak on the Third Reading if you will afford me that opportunity.

§ Mr. Hopkin
May I refer to one point which has been raised in the Debate, on the question of the 40 per cent. T.B. 2357 in herds? I mentioned in my speech on Second Reading that there is not a shadow of evidence of any kind that the herds to-day are infected with T.B. to anything like the extent of 40 per cent. I also pointed out that the figure of 40 per cent. arose from the Gowland Hopkins Report in which that figure was fixed on the committee having examined 144 herds out of 140,000.

The Deputy-Chairman
I cannot see what relation this has to- the Schedule.

§ Mr. Hopkin
I thought that I might be able to get round it by replying to the statement which had previously been made and which I respectfully submit, is not correct.

§ Dr. Summerskill
As I made the statement, may I be allowed to make an explanation?