HC Deb 06 August 1941 vol 373 cc2043-8

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.(Alternative conditions to be complied with by authorised sellers of poisons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 27,after "drugs, "insert "dispensed or."

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is of a purely drafting character.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 15, leave out Sub-section (7).

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.''

This must be read alongside the Amendment to insert the second new Clause on the Paper. The new Clause expresses the same idea as that contained in the Subsection which it is proposed to omit, but it does so in slightly different and rather more appropriate words. I do not think the House will wish to be bothered with a detailed description of why the proposed new words are more appropriate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 21, leave out Sub-section (8).

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This proposal must be read in conjunction with the proposal to insert the first of the two new Clauses on the Order Paper. It was found after the Bill had got through this House that there was no provision for the enforcement of the provisions of this Part of the Act relating to poisons in the case of sellers of poisons who were not also sellers of drugs and who only sold the poisons contained in Part II of the Poisons List. We are, therefore, omitting Subsection (8), which was intended to deal with this point in a limited way, and the new Clause provides a comprehensive scheme for dealing with the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 44, at the end, insert new Clause:

(Extension of local authorities list.)

(1) On the application of an authorised seller of poisons who wishes to sell at any premises poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List, but neither poisons included in Part I of that list nor drugs, the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated shall enter his name in the list kept by them under section twenty-one of the principal Act as a person entitled subject to the provisions of that Act, to sell on those premises poisons included in the said Part II: Provided that the local authority may refuse to enter in, or may remove from, the list the name of any person who fails to pay the fees prescribed by rules or who in the opinion of the authority is, for any sufficient reason relating either to him personally or to his premises, not fit to be on the list. (2)The provisions of subsections (2) to (7) of the said section twenty-one (which relate to appeals from the decision of a local authority to refuse to enter a name in, or to remove a name from the list, and other incidental matters) shall apply for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section. (3)Where any premises of an authorised seller of poisons are entered in a local author ity's list by virtue of this section, it shall be the duty of the authority under subsection (5) of section twenty-five of the principal Act, and not the duty of the Society under sub section (1) of that section, to take all reason able steps to secure compliance by him, as respects those premises, with the provisions of Part 11 of the principal Act and of the rules made there under so far as those pro visions relate to poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List; and the provisions of subsections (5) to (10) of that section relating to inspectors shall apply accordingly.

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, and a Special Entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment in page3, line 44, agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers of Statutory Committee over bodies corporate.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 29, after "not," insert " at the time when the directions are given.

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment to remove any possible doubt as to the relevant date to be considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 12, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 31, leave out "an article."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the other Amendments to this page must be read together. They are intended to make it clear that the substance referred to is the combined ingredients contained in it and not the individual constituents. We thought we had the drafting so clear that it would be understood that the substance in a bottle was not the actual separate ingredients which were recommended but the mixture as a whole. One might take the example of a cocktail. In another place it was suggested that if a mixture of tomato juice and Worcester sauce were sold, it was not the tomato sauce or the Worcester sauce that was recommended but the mixture of the two. We thought that the drafting of the Bill made it plain that the article that was sold was the bottle or container or packet containing the substance which was recommended. There was, however, some doubt in the minds of one section of the Society of Herbalists that the drafting was not clear. When we met them and explained what we meant they suggested some further words, which are embodied in these Amendments. They make it clear that when the article is sold it is the bottle or the container containing the substance that is the recommended medicine, and if it is not in the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex it can be sold by anyone. The fact that the individual ingredients in the substance may be in the Pharmacopoeia does not matter, because it is the substance as a whole that is sold. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of the Bill because it has not been examined sufficiently carefully. We are putting in these words in order to make it even clearer, if possible, to those who are willing and anxious to read the Bill.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

May I ask whether the words now proposed meet with the full approval of the Society of Herbalists? There has been a good deal of controversy and correspondence, and I would like to get that assurance.

Miss Horsbrugh

The Amendments to page 10 which we are now discussing have been inserted to cover them. I do not want the House to think, however, that they are entirely satisfied about other Clauses, although I think they ought to be if they read the Bill as a whole.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments, to page 10, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Defences to and evidence on charges under two preceding sections.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 35, at the end, insert: (3) No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of section eight instituted by the Society or by a food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.

Miss Horsbrugh

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment will again, I think, help those who have any anxiety. One of the anxieties of the herbalists was that someone who might be an opponent, who did not agree with their selling herbal remedies, might, under Clause 9, go into one of their shops, buy some medicine and then institute a case in the courts. It is, therefore, proposed that no prosecution for a contravention of the two preceding Sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General. In another place it was agreed to by those representing the herbalists that the Pharmaceutical Society and the Food and Drugs Authorities should still have their rights under Clause 8. It is now clear, however, that no rival in business such as an individual from a chemist shop in the same street will be able to prosecute without the consent of the Attorney-General. This Amendment was made to meet anxieties which perhaps were not well founded, but were sincerely felt by the people representing the Society of Herbalists.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)

I would like an assurance regarding prosecution. The herbalists want to know whether the British Medical Association are to be given such powers that they can persuade the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to destroy their businesses. They do not feel happy about it. They do not appear to have tarried on this campaign from a vindictive standpoint, and they are doubtful of the Minister's explanation in this House. Are we saying to the herbalists by this Clause that they can carry on business so long as they act within the law and do not contravene anything which any other citizen or tradesman is not allowed to contravene?

Miss Horsbrugh

This Amendment is practically in the same sense as the Amendment which was put down in another place on behalf of the herbalists, with the exception of the proviso about the Food and Drugs Act. As the hon. Member has said, there has been a good deal of feeling on this matter, but I think myself that it is now over. I feel that the explanation given in another place, and above all the fact that at last, a few days ago, the herbalists were willing to come to the Ministry of Health and put their difficulties before us round a table, has brought about quite a different atmosphere. I only wish they had done so before, because it would have settled the whole matter if those who had been able to speak for them had come to us earlier with their legal advisers.

Mr. Walkden

We are very glad.

Miss Horsbrugh

I do not say that they may not still have some anxiety, but I think it has been made clear that this Amendment will carry out what we arranged, subject to the proviso.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I agree with what the hon. Lady has said, but there are just two things which perhaps the. Attorney-General can do for us. The first is to assure us that he has no connection with the British Medical Association, and the second that he is not unduly prejudiced against herbalists.

The Attorney-General

I am happy to give that assurance in both cases.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

Is this protection against prosecution quite satisfactory to those legal advisers of the herbalists who met my hon. Friend?

Miss Horsbrugh

The hon. and gallant Member, if he had seen the Order Paper for another place, would have noticed that an Amendment was put down on behalf of the herbalists asking that no prosecutions should take place except with the consent of the Attorney-General, and the only difference between that and the present Amendment is that there is now a proviso. Of course, if the herbalists and those who speak for them have no faith in the Attorney-General, I am afraid we must differ.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.