§ As amended, considered.
§ NEW CLAUSE— (Enforcement by Pharmaceutical Society.)
§
Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has been introduced in answer to a request by the House that on the professional side the enforcement should be made through the Pharmaceutical Society, and these are the appropriate words, which, after discussion, I promised to bring forward to the House when on the Committee stage of the Bill.
§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)On the Committee stage there was a question as to whether powers given to the Pharmaceutical Society would interfere with powers of the local authority. The local authorities agreed that these powers can be exercised by the Society without interfering with the powers which they exercise.
§ Mr. E. BrownI think that there can be no doubt that the powers of the local authorities will remain unimpaired.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
§ NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of Statutory Committee over bodies corporate.)
§
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Captain Elliston (Blackburn)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Although this Clause looks very large, it is a very simple matter, and I do not think it will keep the House occupied for more than a few minutes. Clause 2 gives power to the Statutory Committee to consider cases of misconduct or of conviction for a criminal offence where the pharmacy concerned is temporarily unregistered by reason of the non-payment of fees. The new Clause has been set down to extend the principle to corporate bodies carrying on a chemist's business. It brings them within the jurisdiction of the Statutory Committee for breaches committed while they are temporarily not carrying on business in accordance with the Pharmacy Acts. That is the main desire back of the Clause, and I hope that the House will be willing to accept it.
§ Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)I beg to second the Motion.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out in moving the Motion, Clause 2 incorporates certain extensions of the powers of the Statutory Committee which have been found to be desirable as the result of practical experience of the working of the Pharmacy Act, 1933. My hon. and gallant Friend's new Clause would make similar extensions in cases where corporate bodies are concerned, as Clause 2 does in the case where individuals are concerned. It is a useful Amendment, which, obviously, ought to have been incorporated in the Bill at an earlier stage, but the omission has been pointed out to us by the Pharmaceutical Society, and we accept the Clause.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
832§ NEW CLAUSE—(Exercise of jurisdiction of Statutory Committee.)
- (1)No directions shall be given by the Statutory Committee under section two of this Act, or under subsection (3) of section nine of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, except with the assent of the chairman of the committee.
- (2)Subsection (1) of section eleven of the principal Act (which restricts the power of the Statutory Committee to give directions under the foregoing provisions of that Act in cases of default by an employee) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the fore going provisions of that Act included a reference to the provisions of this Act.
- (3)Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the principal Act (which empowers the Statutory Committee to make regulations as to the procedure to be followed in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by that Act) shall have effect as if the reference therein to that Act included a reference to this Act.—[Captain Elliston.]
§ Brought up; and read the First time.
§ Captain EllistonI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is consequential upon the new Clause with which we have just dealt. It brings the provisions of that Clause into line with the procedure of the Statutory Committee under the principal Act by requiring the Chairman, as well as the majority of the Committee, to be satisfied before a company is penalised.
§ Dr. Russell ThomasI beg to Second the Motion.
§ Mr. PeakeWe have looked at this new Clause. It is consequential upon the previous new Clause and will be a useful addition to the Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
§ CLAUSE 6 (Disclosure of composition of medicines)
§ Mr. E. BrownI beg to move, in page 7, line 9, after "sold," to insert, "or supplied as aforesaid."
This Amendment is consequential on Amendments accepted by me on the Committee stage.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 11, at the beginning, insert, "or supplied as aforesaid."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
833§ Mr. E. BrownI beg to move, in page 7, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 21, and to insert:
I will make a general statement on this Amendment, as it covers a long Amendment later on the same page. The House will remember that in all quarters two desires were expressed: first, that we should enlarge the scope of the definition by including quantities and, second, that so Jar as possible we should get the expression in popular language. I pointed out in the course of the Second Reading Debate that the English language, expressed in certain definitions, was not quite as clear as some technical headlines which were not supposed to be in the English language. The real desire of the House was to get it as clear as could be, and I have had a close look at this matter to see how far we could get disclosure expressed in everyday terms. This Amendment and the following Amendment are my propositions to the House. I am bound to say, however, that the more popular you tend to make an expression the more danger you are in of losing accuracy, and the House would not wish me to lose accuracy for popularity.
- "(i) the appropriate designation of the substance so recommended or of each of the active constituents thereof; and
- (ii) in a case where the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents is written as aforesaid, the appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents."
What I have done is to examine very thoroughly disclosure in everyday terms, and wherever a well-known term exists that name should be used. I have come to the conclusion that I must not make that disclosure in so vague and uncertain terms as to make it either less accurate than otherwise or less easily enforceable. I have fallen back on disclosure in terms which will be readily understood by a doctor, chemist or any other expert. Taken with the other Amendment this Amendment requires disclosure in one of the following ways: (1) Where a medicine or a constituent is a poison in the Poisons List the name to be used is that required in connection with the labelling of the poison; (2) Where it is not a poison but is described in the British Pharmacopeia or the British Pharmaceutical Codex the description at the head of the relevant monograph must be used; (3) Where it is neither a poison nor described in the British Pharma- 834 ceutical Codex, then the accepted scientific name or other name descriptive of its true nature must be used.
I think the House will agree that I have done my best to meet their desires in this matter. So far as quantitative disclosure is concerned the second part of this particular Amendment and the subsequent Amendment require the quantities of the named constituents to be disclosed either by giving the percentages in the medicine, or by stating the actual amounts. When a medicine is supplied in the form of pills and tablets disclosure may be made in one of three ways: (1) The percentage of the constituent in the medicine; (2) the quantity in each pill or tablet; or (3) the quantity of the constituent in the whole article. The effect of these Amendments, together is to require disclosure in English so that the explicit requirement to that effect is unnecessary.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsSo far as I can see, the Minister has made an honest attempt to meet not only my desire but the desires of others. What we are anxious to do, as far as possible, is to prevent people being defrauded, and in order to protect people it is essential that we must tell the public what is in their medicine. The description must be in terms that will be understood by the people. I accept the Minister's assurance that that point will be fully met when it can be met in the Amendments which he now proposes.
§ Sir Francis Fremantle (St. Albans)I do not want to do more than thank my right hon. Friend for having met us in other respects. I agree that as regards the description we have the same desire as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). We want to stop fraud by having plain statements which cannot be got round by the extremely ingenious people who are sharks in this world. It must be something quite clear and definite, and for that purpose we must use scientific names. But they must be such scientific names as can be traced to their source. If the public are inquisitive and want to know what they are taking, they will no doubt be advised by doctors or chemists or through the Press. The Press has constantly been fulfilling this extremely useful function of interpreting technical phrases of any profession for the benefit of the general reader. We shall have to rely on them, as I know we can, to interpret these terms by referring to the 835 British Pharmacopoeia or the Codex, so in that way the public will get what they want and not be defrauded as in the past. The second point in the Amendment, is the provision requiring quantitative particulars. It is essential that not only should the description state what are the ingredients, but give the quantity of the ingredients, because otherwise a man who wished to defraud the public might include in the medicine an infinitesimal dose of some important ingredient and fill it up with unimportant ingredients. We were afraid that the proprietary trade might object to this quantitative statement, and I think it is to their credit that they met the Minister in this respect and agreed to the provision. I think this Amendment has the unique advantage of satisfying everybody, including me.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)I do not think anybody fails to recognise the good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and I congratulate him on having translated the promises he gave into words in these Amendments; but I want to ask him whether it is possible that, in his efforts to meet the criticisms that were made, he has overlooked the effect of the word "quantitative" on the business of herbalists, for whom I speak in the House. I can quite understand that in the case of drugs, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), it is essential that the quantities of the ingredients should be stated, but the herbalists feel that if they have to state the quantities of the different ingredients of herbal preparations, they will be giving away their trade secrets to those who may be called their competitors. After all, the herbalists have built up their great popularity, which they deservedly have, over a long period of years, and they were practising long before druggists and chemists came into existence. They feel that it is now a matter of grave importance that my right hon. Friend should not overlook the fact that if the word "quantitative" is applied in the case of herbal preparations, it may have a very damaging effect on the herbalists' trade. I hope my right hon. Friend will find a way of meeting this point in another place.
§ Professor A. V. Hill (Cambridge University)I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting the points that were brought forward during the Committee stage. I believe that the qualifications he has now introduced in these Amendments will very greatly strengthen the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 25, after "subsection," insert:
§ CLAUSE 7.—(Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.)
§ Sir T. MooreI beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out paragraph (a).
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss together this Amendment and the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act a person who carries on a legitimate practice of herbalism and the sale of herbal preparations may, subject to the provisions of Section six of this Act sell herbal preparations which are medicines within the meaning of this Act.837 The purpose of these Amendments is to prevent the Bill from stopping the business of herbalists. I make no apology for raising this matter again. I know that my right hon. Friend intends, as far as words can make his meaning clear, to safeguard the rights of herbalists, and I know that intention is shared by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have in my hand a copy—I trust that my right hon. Friend also has one—of the opinion of an eminent counsel as to the effect which this Clause will have on the position of herbalists. I will not quote the whole of the document, but only this remark:There is not the slightest foundation for any such suggestion "—that is, the suggestion that anything in Clause 7 can affect herbalists. In view of that opinion, given by a very eminent counsel, which thus gives a legal backing for the contention I am advancing, surely my right hon. Friend will see to it that the Amendments I am moving are accepted, or will find some other method of wording the Clause which will put the position completely beyond doubt. Subsection (1) of the Clause prohibits any persons from selling medicines unless they are registered medical practitioners, registered dentists, authorised sellers of poisons, or chemists. This creates a further monopoly for the greatest monopolists in the country. The herbalists are convinced that under the Bill as it now is, any herbalist who continues to sell herbal preparations will be liable to prosecution. It is true that in Subsections (4) and (5) of the Clause, herbalists would be permitted to put up two defences, but I do not believe that these provisions, or the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has on the Order Paper to Sub-section 4 (a) are adequate. They provide no safeguard.I should like to recall to my right hon. Friend, in support of my argument, that in the Second Reading debate, and again in Committee, both he and the Parliamentary Secretary said several times that they did not intend to prevent herbalists from carrying on the businesses they had formed, but I maintain that those intentions are inconsistent with the Bill as it now is. In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend said that there was no desire on the part of anyone to interfere with the legitimate practice of the legitimate herbalist. In reply to the hon. 838 Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and myself, it was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary that there was no desire whatever to interfere with the genuine operations of genuine herbalists. Notwithstanding all those assurances, apparently herbalists will not be allowed to continue their businesses, as they feel they must continue if they are to be of service to the country and the invalid section of the community, which certainly they are today. It was for the purpose of giving my right hon. Friend an opportunity of giving effect to these various undertakings and promises that I put down these two Amendments. I ask him to accept the Amendments and allow herbalists who carry on legitimate businesses, as the majority of them do to-day, in the sale of herbal preparations, to continue doing so.
§ Major Milner (Leeds, South-East)I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so, not because I have any special interest in herbalists, or, indeed, that I have any knowledge of the business they carry on, but because the Amendment seems to cover a difficulty which was put to me this morning. The difficulty arises in this way. I am informed by the Incorporated Society of Pharmacists and Drug Store Proprietors, whose registered office is in Leeds, that a number of people throughout the country, who have not been formally apprenticed, have been carrying on business for a number of years, either on their own account, or with others. For example, there is one man whose father was a qualified pharmacist in March, 1871, who died in November, 1925, after being in the business for 54 years. His son, who was born in1874, helped his father and eventually assisted in dispensing, but unfortunately was not formally apprenticed. Since his father's death that man has carried on the business in an unqualified capacity. He has been engaged in the business for 50 years or more. It seems to me that unless some Amendment is adopted, that man will have to close down his business which he has apparently carried on successfully without complaint for more than 50 years. I would remind the Minister that many of these businesses are carried on in the poorer parts of large cities and that they assist people who live in those areas.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me, assuming that a man has sold herbal preparations under these 839 circumstances, if the Amendment is accepted, whether he will be covered, and, if not, what will be his position. Under the Bill as it stands, will those businesses have to be closed down and the owners faced possibly with ruin? There are many professions where those who have carried on in an unqualified capacity have had some provision made to deal with their case, such as the legal profession, and so on. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable that, subject to a certificate from the Minister's Department or elsewhere, in these extreme cases, those concerned should be permitted to retain their rights and privileges, instead of being deprived of their livelihood.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsBefore the Minister replies, may I ask him to make as plain a statement as is possible on the position of herbalists under this Bill, and to state whether this Amendment is necessary or not to protect the public. Since last we discussed this matter I have received an enormous amount of correspondence, including many letters from my constituents. I could quote to the Committee many of these authentic cases. I have made inquiries and I have found out that they are genuine letters, and, therefore, I must pay some attention to them. They nearly all follow the same line. The persons concerned state they have tried their doctor and have seen a specialist but have obtained no satisfaction until they have visited a herbalist. These people have probably been canvassed by the herbalists, who have told them that if this Bill passes they will be unable to continue to give their treatment. The Bill lays down certain conditions, and they are necessary conditions, but I think some clear and concise statement should be made on this subject. I have a letter from the Society of Herbalists. The Minister will remember that when we discussed this Bill last he said that he had met them and that they were entirely satisfied, but according to my letter they left completely unsatisfied with the Minister's explanation. Members must take notice of these letters, although it is our duty to see that no one is allowed to practise to the detriment of the public. In many ways there is a case for extending the provisions of this Bill. It has already been pointed out in a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) that 840 many of the practices about which he spoke will not be affected by this Measure. I appeal to the Minister to make a plain statement, so that there is no ambiguity and misunderstanding on the position of herbalists.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh)I will now try to make a plain statement. I should like to reassure hon. Members in all parts of the House that, as my right hon. Friend and I have stated over and over again, we have no desire to stop herbalists carrying on their work. We have also been asked about the position of faith healers, who are endeavouring to cure illnesses as they think best. There is nothing in this Bill to stop treatment of any sort or kind. The easiest way of dealing with this Amendment is to try and make the plainest statement on what can be done if this Bill becomes an Act. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anyone treating anyone else for any illness.
§ Mr. MacLaren (Burslem)Treatment has a different meaning in different circumstances.
§ Miss HorsbrughI do not think this Bill will prevent any form of treatment. There is nothing to prevent herbalists or anyone else from making any mixture under a proprietary name and selling it under a proprietary name, so long as there is disclosure, as provided under Clause 6. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who moved this Amendment, quoted an expert opinion on Clause 7, but it did not refer to the whole of Clause 7. If these people had studied the whole of Clause 7, instead of dealing with only one part of it, a great deal of this difficulty might have been cleared up. If my hon. and gallant Friend looks at the Clause, he will see there is a Sub-section (5) as well as a Sub-section (4). One group of people for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs has put the case, who are selling a large number of proprietary medicines, know that the names of the contents must be disclosed. What can they do in future? They can, under Sub-section (4, a), sell this mixture of herbs. There is an Amendment on the Paper going further and including water as well, as some people seem to think that substance must be solid and not liquid, though I 841 am informed it is not so. Sub-section (4, a) in its amended form shows what herbalists can do in making simple preparations of herbs with water. They can continue to do that.
It may be said that under that simple preparation there cannot be distilling and various other things, but they can still make and sell preparations involving those processes under a proprietary name. What they can do under Sub-section (4, a) are the simple preparations which herbalists are doing without having a proprietary name. If they wish to go beyond that and come into the sphere which would not be that of simple herbal preparations, they can, but they must sell the preparation under a proprietary name, as the majority are doing now, and the preparation must not be one that is already in the British Pharmacopoeia. I think the difficulty has been that people have looked at Sub-section (4, a) and said, "We cannot distil and we cannot make this particular preparation," but they have not gone on and seen that under (5, a) they can do all those things and sell the result under a proprietary name, disclosing the contents. We have been very careful to go into this. I have asked these people to send me a single case showing what they could not do. When I have been told "distilling," my answer has been, "You can do that not under (4, a) but under (5, a). We can see no case at all." It was put to me again, '' Supposing a particular person had been treating and selling medicines for particular ailments, can be go on doing it? He can go on treating, and he can sell the medicine that he makes with these simple herbal remedies with water. He can go further and sell proprietary medicines if he discloses the contents. When I am told that a person who wishes to treat will be stopped because the medicine does not come under this, the answer is that the chemist can still make "it up. No treatment of any sort or kind is stopped as far as we can see.
§ Sir T. MooreSurely it is clear that even without the addition of water the processes mentioned in Sub-section (4, a) are limited — there are only a few instead of a vast number of processes— and also they are dry processes to produce a dry substance. My alteration makes it clear beyond doubt. If the result is the same, surely it will be better to remove the doubt which obviously still clings to herbalists.
§ Miss HorsbrughI will try to make it plain. If it is an ordinary, simple, herbal remedy it will come within Sub-section (4, a) If people want to go further, they can do so under (5, a) using a proprietary name. That is the simplest explanation that I can give. The two things must be taken together. I hope I have put hon. Members' minds at ease by that explanation. I do not think there is any difference as far as the people to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds(Major Milner) referred are concerned. They all have the same rights and can sell proprietary medicines-under a proprietary name with disclosure. I know that a good many people think they are being put out of business, but I do not think they are being put out of business at all.
§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)Does this apply even where the purveyor of the medicine does not use a shop but uses his own private residence?
§ Miss HorsbrughA shop is defined as in the Shops Acts, and that is a place where retail sale is carried on, so that a house may be a shop.
§ Sir T. MooreI must say candidly that the hon. Lady has satisfied me, but I cannot say whether she has satisfied the herbalists, and the matter may be carried further in another place.
§ Mr. E. BrownI am not anxious to do anything more than I have already indicated. I will look again at what hon. Members have said, but I will not do anything to undercut the real purpose of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir T. MooreI beg to move in page 8, line 39, to leave out "but not subjecting to," and to insert "or."
I move this Amendment in order to get some explanation from the Minister. Under Sub-section (5, a), according to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, herbalists can go much further than they can go under Sub-section (4, a), provided they use a proprietary title for their preparations. Once a proprietary name has been registered it will be impossible, as I see it, for the herbalist making the preparation to make any changes in the make-up so that he will be unable to make use of fresh knowledge that might come to him for the benefit of the community. As far as I can see once a 843 herbalist has registered a title he will not be allowed to devise any suitable process which may come through increased knowledge. Therefore, the public will be denied the benefit of many preparations which might be given to them.
§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)I beg to second the Amendment.
This strangely drafted Bill says that a lot of things are offences and that if there is a prosecution, such and such a thing will be a good defence. The Bill says that there shall be a prosecution in order to establish a good defence, instead of adopting the sensible way of saying that it shall not be an offence to do so and so. This is extraordinary drafting which should be looked into. On the question of proprietary articles, a person can continue to sell them unless they are in the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex, so that all the chemists have to do in order to wreck the industry of these people is to shove articles into the Codex or Pharmacopoeia. I have never seen such drafting in a Bill. I see the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary laughing. Let them read it. Sub-section (5, a) says:
that the substance recommended as a medicine which the article consisted of or comprised was not described in any of the monographs contained in the edition of the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex which was last published before the date of the passing of this Act.
§ Miss HorsbrughRead on.
§ Sir H. WilliamsIt goes on:
or the date on which the substance was first sold by retail under the proprietary designation, whichever date is the later.Therefore, my right hon. Friend contends that you can change the articles as much as you like and no offence arises. There have to be prosecutions under this Bill before a man can show himself to be in the right, because the Bill is drawn on the basis of prosecutions. Sub-sections (5) and (6) are not exceptions to the preliminary words of the Clause, which are, "no person shall sell by retail." That prohibition remains unqualified, but, having sold by retail something which comes under Subsections (4, a) or (5, a), when the police or whoever prosecutes have done their proper job, a person is charged with an offence—
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Amendment with which we have already dealt. We are now on what is merely a drafting Amendment.
§ Sir H. WilliamsMy hon. and gallant Friend gave the example of the proprietary medicine, which is partly covered by this Amendment. The problem also arises in Sub-section (5, a), and I would not have raised it in this particular form unless you had previously permitted my hon. and gallant Friend to raise the problem of the proprietary medicine. I think that my right hon. Friend should look at these paragraphs with a view to re-drafting the Clause in another place, so that people will be freed from the obligation of having to raise these defences. It is a point that must be examined by the legal advisers of the Minister.
§ Miss HorsbrughWith regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), the ingredients can be changed as long as disclosure takes place of the new ingredients. In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), if a person was selling a preparation before it appeared in the Codex or the Pharmacopoeia, he can go on selling it. If it appeared in them the day after he sold it, he can go on selling it as long as he sold it first. He cannot sell a thing which is already in the Codex or the Pharmacopoeia. The question of drafting which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon is a larger matter than I can deal with at this moment. I would point out that it is only the individual himself who can give the information as to when he first sold the article. Supposing he was selling a particular medicine and he was told that he had no right to sell it because it was in the Pharmacopoeia or the Codex, he could then prove that he sold it before it was included. That is a defence. My right hon. Friend will look further into my hon. Friend's points. The difficulty has been to safeguard all these matters, and that is why the drafting is so complex. My right hon. Friend, however, will see whether it can be made simpler, at the same time leaving these safeguards which we are anxious to retain.
§ Sir H. WilliamsDo I understand that an attempt will be made to see whether the Bill can be re-drafted so that a person who is charged will be deemed to be innocent instead of being presumed to be guilty and having to defend himself?
§ Sir T. MooreIn view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, which is not altogether satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir T. MooreI beg to move, in page 8, line 40, to leave out "of a single species."
I am moving this Amendment in order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of exercising his real kindness and generosity, because I can see no possible justification for not accepting it. As the Clause reads at the moment these preparations are limited to a single species, the words being
of a substance produced by drying, crushing, or comminuting (bat not subjecting to any other process) a plant or plants of a single species.Candidly, none of my herbalist friends can see any justification for limiting these preparations to a single species. They say that often it is necessary to boil various herbs and to infuse them at one and the same time if real benefit is to be secured from the component parts of each, and it is felt that it was possibly due to some misunderstanding of the methods by which these preparations are made that the Minister allowed the phrase "single species" to be incorporated in the Clause.
§ Sir H. WilliamsI beg to second the Amendment
I can see no reason for limiting this to a single species. My right hon. Friend, despite his cheerfulness, is a teetotaller, but if he ever had consumed that commodity which the vulgar call a "Gin and It" he would have known that it was composed of two herbs, one being juniper, though what the other is I do not know. It is not, however, regarded as a medicine officially, although some people look upon it in that way. I cannot see why we cannot be allowed to mix the results of drying, crushing or comminuting two different species of herbs. I cannot see any sense in that restriction, although there may be some reason for it which my right hon. Friend can explain to us. When you buy a bottle of medicine the bottle has a label 846 bearing a lot of words in bad Latin which I do not understand but which the medical profession regard as a complete disclosure of what is inside the bottle. Sometimes it finishes up with "H2O," and I happen to know what that means, but it is a disclosure. There was a celebrated case of a chemist who received a piece of paper on which a fly had walked and took it to be a prescription and succeeded in making it up. Therefore, my medical friends must not be too perturbed if I say that I see no reason why these "simples," as I think they were once called, should not include more than one substance. It may be that paragraph (4, a) means that they may, but the Bill is drafted so incomprehensibly that it is possible that I have misread it.
§ Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)I shall not associate myself with what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said about the Minister being so cheerful although he was a teetotaller. I am almost certain that he is so cheerful because he is a teetotaller. Although I am supporting this Amendment, I do not want anyone to think I am supporting it in the same spirit as the hon. Member for South Croydon. What I do know is that there are a lot of species of plants, and that I do not think any hon. Member has had more advice offered to him about remedies than I have had during the last seven years. I have had "perfect cures" sent to me from all parts of the world. One came from Blackburn. The lady wrote: "I see by the Press that you are suffering from so-and-so. I have a cure for it." The cure was this: to pound up some pigs' toe-nails until they are almost like powder and then drink them in water That was sent to me as a perfect cure for diabetes. I think it would be a pity for the Minister to prevent a cure like that from being tried by human beings.
§ Miss HorsbrughThe first thing I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) is that in this Sub-section we are dealing with herbs, and so I am afraid that pigs' toe-nails do not come in.
§ Mr. GriffithsBut the pigs live on herbs.
§ Miss HorsbrughMy right hon. Friend says "Not wholly." Let me come back to herbs, and say that my right hon. Friend is quite willing to accept the 847 Amendment, but if the Mover and the Seconder will look at the Amendment and then at the words in the Bill they will see that their Amendment is really unnecessary since we already have the words "two or more such substances." And in an Amendment which I shall be moving later we get the same words: "two or more such substances." Therefore, we have already provided that there may be more than one species. We have already provided for the mixing of two species, and further for the mixing of more than two species, and so the point which the hon. Members wanted covering is already covered.
§ Sir H. WilliamsI am delighted with that explanation, but I do not think the hon. Lady quite realises where it leads her. Her argument is that to delete these words will make no difference. The unfortunate thing is that if this Bill should go before the courts to be interpreted the judge will say "Why are those words in?" He will not take any notice of the eloquent speech just made. The real burden of the speech was that the words really make no difference because there can be as many species as they like. But the judge will think that the words have been put in for a definite purpose, and will have to find out what that purpose is, and no one knows what the result may be. It is only another proof of how badly the Bill is drafted.
§ Mr. E. BrownMy hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has not given that close attention to all the stages of this Bill which he usually gives to Measures in which he is interested. The present drafting is not the official drafting of the Bill but is the result of an attempt by me to meet these very points. We have met the points about blending, and more than one species, and more than one substance, and I am advised that it is not now necessary in pursuance of the general scheme to include the words mentioned in the Amendment, and therefore I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Miss HorsbrughI beg to move, in page 8, line 42, after "substances," to insert:
or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are one or more of such substances and water.848 This provides that water may be added to the substances. It has been suggested that the word "substance" does not include liquid. This Amendment is put forward by my right hon. Friend in order to meet that point.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir T. MooreI beg to move, in page 8, line 42, after the words last inserted, to insert:
with or without the addition of preservatives.This Amendment seeks to insert a provision to permit preservatives to be used. They are not part of the mixture or of the preparation as such, the essential part of which is the medicine. Such preservatives are intended as may be necessary to prevent the mixture from decaying.
§ Sir F. FremantleWhat is "decaying"?
§ Sir T. MooreThe hon. Gentleman and I are approaching that age—
§ Mr. J. GriffithsYou will need preservatives.
§ Sir T. MooreNo doubt the Parliamentary draftsmen will understand what is meant by the term, and so will the herbalists and any court which may have to consider the point. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that herbal preparations are safe from decay by the use of proper and adequate preservatives.
§ Professor A. V. HillMy trouble about the word "preservative" is that very few things could not be called into that category by some stretch of imagination. We do not want to leave loopholes in the Bill by which the public may be deceived. I ask the House not to agree to this Amendment if the expression "preservative" is not to be more accurately denned.
§ Miss HorsbrughI am glad my hon. Friend has just put that point. I am sure that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will realise that "preservative" is a rather wide term. Preservatives may be added if medicines are sold under a proprietary name, but I am informed that the whole nature of some vegetable substances may be changed by certain treatment and converted into substances quite outside the range of herbalists' activity. I will not trouble the House by going into detail on this point.
849 I point out to the Mover of the Amendment that what cannot be done under this provision can be done in the case of a proprietary medicine.
§ Sir H. WilliamsIf I put on a bottle that '' ethyl alcohol '' has been used as a preservative, would that meet the requirements?
§ Miss HorsbrughAfter agreeing to the addition of water, it now appears that we are to add alcohol. The Mover of the Amendment will appreciate the difficulties involved in defining what a preservative is.
§ Sir T. MooreI fully realise the difficulty. If it should be possible to find some better method, an Amendment might be accepted in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CLAUSE 8.—(Defence to charges under two preceding sections.)
§ Amendment made:
§
In page 9, line 41, at the end, insert:
(2) In any proceedings for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections, a document purporting to be a certificate signed by a public analyst within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, or a person appointed by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purpose of the principal Act, and stating the result of an analysis made by him, shall be admissible as evidence of the matters stated therein, but any party to the proceedings may require the person by whom the analysis was made to be called as a witness."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
§ CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)
§ Amendments made:
§
In page 12, line 19, at the end, insert:
(b) for the reference to a public analyst within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, there shall be substituted a reference to a public analyst appointed under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.
§ In line 20, after "five," insert "and Section ten."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Sir F. FremantleI should not like to let the Bill go without emphasising the great debt we owe to those who have brought the Bill to this stage of being passed into law. In the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) I can register also what we owe to him, without raising 850 his blushes. This is the end of a long history of hard endeavour on the part of himself and his friends, over many years, to deal with this species of fraud on the public. I hope the Bill will do much to put an end to that fraud. My hon. and gallant Friend has done a great deal of work in this direction, with very little help and against a great deal of antagonism. He has met the persons concerned, and now the Minister of Health has put the matter into official form. I believe the Minister has realised in his conferences some of the difficulties which have been met with all these years by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn. A great tribute is due to all the interests concerned. They have mollified their opposition by degrees, until now they have come to heel by supporting this legislation.
This is a remarkable piece of legislation from the point of view of bringing out what is too often forgotten: the quite rightful opportunity—the liberal opportunity—that is left to herbalists and other people to treat the public so long as they do not defraud. It is often said and thought that the medical profession has a monopoly of treatment. There is no such thing. Everybody can get treated or maltreated as much as he likes, and I am very glad that the herbalists should have been left the opportunity they have under this Bill. We quite recognise the truth of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said to the effect that herbalists carried on their trade long before the medical profession as such was thought of. The use of herbs is as old as creation, and it is through that that the medical and pharmaceutical professions have discovered the use of valuable drugs. They have been tried out under the most extraordinary empirical conditions, often with disastrous results to the patients—it has been an experiment in vivisection on the community—but often with such valuable results that a drug has come into common use. One such drug is ergot, which is extraordinarily valuable in child-birth. It is now recognised as consisting of several constituents, some of which are valuable while others are dangerous, and the valuable derivatives are now in common practical use in pharmacy. It is an instance of how we must not stifle enterprise and individuality of any kind, nor the desire and the right of 851 people to use any method they think fit for treating themselves or for being treated, and giving proper remuneration in return for the benefits or otherwise which they receive. The medical profession entirely endorses that point of view. We have no monopoly and do not wish to have any monopoly.
On the other hand, we recognise, and I hope it is generally recognised too, that this is in keeping with the Medical Act of 1858, and subsequent amending Acts, which were introduced not in order to give privileges to the medical profession, but to give protection and guidance to the general public. Obviously there are difficult border-line cases, but in general it is for the protection of the public that there is a recognised medical profession with a recognised training—I believe of a very high standard, consistently maintained—but there is nothing to prevent people using their own judgment if they so desire. From the point of view of the medical profession and from that of the public, this Measure is only a stepping stone. It is a great advance, not least because of the improvements which have been made to it to-day, but there are other things which have already been referred to which cannot be so easily defined. I have not the least doubt that the sharks who have made money by deliberately misleading the public will continue to do so, because they will find ways of avoiding the provisions of the present Measure. Further amendments may therefore be required, but it is a very good thing to proceed slowly, step by step, and this Measure will be a useful test as to how far restrictions can be introduced without disturbance to the proper interests of the public. I trust it will be rapidly passed in another place and will soon become law, and that the arrangements for enforcing it will be properly carried out. We shall then find much useful experience in its operation.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsWe ought to thank the Minister and his assistants for the way in which they have tried to meet the Amendments put down. This will be a useful Bill. I think it was a necessary Bill for the protection of that part of the public which most needs protection, the people who are suffering from disease and whose psychology is open to the 852 worst kind of exploitation. If the Bill gives that protection, it will be a very useful Bill indeed. I think it could have gone further than it does, but I am sure the Minister will later call for a report on its operation to see whether its provisions need widening or tightening-up, and I hope he will not hesitate to come to the House to ask for authority in that direction. I will conclude with the first observation I made in the course of the Second Reading, that the best remedy against all these things is to build up a positive medical service available to everyone everywhere, making all that science knows available to all on equal terms. Out of the survey which is to be made and out of the stresses of war I hope something of the kind may ultimately come. Meantime, we give this Bill a welcome.
§ Question, "that the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.