HC Deb 29 April 1949 vol 464 cc559-63

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, at the end, to add: (4) The provisions of section eighty-three of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938, shall not apply to any proceedings under section eight of this Act if the breach of condition was in connection with milk sold to the defendant. I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow). The object is to do away with the position which arises whereby if a retailer commits an offence he has two opportunities of passing the responsibility back to the wholesaler. We consider that Clause 16 (3) should be sufficient without having recourse to previous Acts. We do not want to protect the wholesaler who may have committed an offence, but we suggest that the retailer and the public are sufficiently covered under this Bill. One of the arguments of the Minister may be that if this Amendment is carried, the wholesaler who has committed an offence may escape. We do not think so. I am not an authority on milk. I am acting as a stop-gap. I am told that certain tests are applied to a retailer which are not similar to those applied to a wholesaler. Therefore, if a retailer has committed an offence because a certain test has not been complied with, it would be unfair that he should pass the responsibility to the wholesaler who is subject to a different test. A wholesaler who has a licence issued and who takes every possible precaution is sufficiently liable to prosecution for an offence without making him liable for an offence which a retailer might pass back to him.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that the House will accept this suggestion. The Food and Drugs Act has been introduced into this Bill for purely administrative purposes. Milk retailers and wholesalers through their licensed organisation have a perfectly reasonable and proper channel of what might be called punitive administration. There is a perfectly proper way in which any breaches of their licences can be dealt with. It is not necessary that, in addition to the sanctions which are available to the local authorities under the Food and Drugs Act, there should be penalties imposed by that Act in respect of matters which were never intended to be subject to the imposition of penalties under that Act at all. I suggest that in this Clause there are already ample sanctions to ensure that milk retailers as well as wholesalers, carry out their obligations in an adequate and proper manner. It is not necessary to have this additional channel open to inspectors and local authorities.

It may be helpful if I try to explain exactly what will be the result of this Amendment. Putting it in non-technical phraseology, under the Food and Drugs Act if it is found that a retailer has sold an article which does not comply with the proper designation, he is entitled, if he can prove that it was not his fault, to pass on the responsibility to the person from whom he got the article, namely, the wholesaler. Likewise, if the wholesaler can prove that he was not responsible, he can pass on responsibility to his supplier. Then we come to a point in the milk industry which we do not find in other industries to which the Act is intended to apply. The ultimate suppliers may be very large indeed in number. The milk is collected from the producers and pooled. It may be impossible for the chain of distribution to be traced back from the retailer to the producer. Therefore, the result of the application of this form of administration will be complete chaos.

I understand that the Government objection to this Amendment is primarily based upon the fact that they hold that it would let out many retailers from liability and render it impossible for them to be prosecuted. The retailers adopt exactly the opposite argument and say that if this Amendment is accepted they will have no defence at all. That, I think, is wrong. For once, the dairymen are in error. The defence provided in Clause 9 will still be open to them. All that is taken away by this Amendment is the alternative defence provided for them by the Food and Drugs Act which I submit they ought not to have. The argument of the dairymen is wrong, and it goes without saying that the argument of the Government is wrong They are both wrong, and I hope that the House will hold that the Amendment is right, and that they will accept it.

Dr. Summerskill

With all due respect to the mover and seconder of this Amendment, I think that they have come here this morning without obtaining legal advice of any kind, and certainly without asking what is the opinion of certain sections of the milk trade. This is a most dangerous Amendment. I am sure that if it were accepted and if it operated, hon. Members opposite would be the first to jump up and to say, "This really is grossly unfair." The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was very brief. It was quite clear that he did not understand the implications of this matter. I observe from his smile that, for the first time, he accepts what I say.

Mr. Baldwin

I hope that the right hon. Lady is quite sure that she understands.

Dr. Summerskill

Women have learned that they always have to know much more than men. Therefore, I never come to this Box without knowing all about my subject.

I think the House will agree that it is significant that this Amendment was put down on Report stage in another place, but no Member of the other place felt that he could move it although it was on the Order Paper. Apparently the same people had briefed another place. This Amendment was not moved, for the reason that, having put it on the Order Paper, the people concerned with it made further inquiries and realised that it was very dangerous and that, in operation, it would be grossly unfair. And under Clause 8, we can of course take certain action against a retailer who has contravened one of our regulations, and the retailer may prove his innocence by producing evidence that the man who has sold him the milk is guilty. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite have with them the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. This Amendment says: (4) The provisions of Section eighty-three of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, — which gives us the power to take action against a defaulting wholesaler— —shall not apply to any proceedings under Section eight of this Act if the breach of condition was in connection with milk sold to the defendant. In other words, if a retailer could prove to the satisfaction of the court that the wholesaler was the guilty party, then, under Section 83 of the Food and Drugs Act, we could take action against the defaulting wholesaler, but this Amendment would cut the ground from under our feet.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

It was intended to.

Dr. Summerskill

It cuts the ground from under the feet of Justice, who is always represented as a woman. I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who have, in a rather irresponsible manner, moved this Amendment, do not really desire it. If a man is guilty, whether he is a wholesaler or a retailer, there must be provisions which can be operated so that action can be taken against him. With all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, this is something which the farmers would all accept very gladly—

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

No.

Dr. Summerskill

Well, yes. If accepted, we would find it difficult to proceed against the defaulting wholesale producer, and I ask the House not to accept the Amendment, because it would be very dangerous in practice.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

May I ask the right hon. Lady a question? Does not her argument apply equally to the wholesaler who can put the responsibility on his supplier, when it will be quite impossible for the Ministry's representative to discover who the supplier is in the circumstances?

Dr. Summerskill

Certainly, they can try to put it on him, but they have got to bring evidence.

Amendment negatived.